Description
Relationship management is the practice of building strong relationships with important publics, including employees. It is expected that richer communication flowing between both employees and management will enhance feelings of trust between management and employees, ultimately resulting in stronger commitment to each other and to the organization.
INTERNAL COMMUNICATION: BUILDING TRUST, COMMITMENT, AND A
POSITIVE REPUTATION THROUGH RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT WITH
EMPLOYEES
Karen Elizabeth Mishra
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication.
Chapel Hill
2007
Approved by:
Lois Boynton
Elizabeth Dougall
Robert Lauterborn
Steve May
Michael Rappa
ii
©2007
Karen Elizabeth Mishra
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iii
ABSTRACT
Karen Mishra: Internal communication: Building trust, commitment, and a positive
reputation through relationship management with employees
(Under the direction of Lois Boynton)
Relationship management is the practice of building strong relationships with
important publics, including employees. It is expected that richer communication flowing
between both employees and management will enhance feelings of trust between
management and employees, ultimately resulting in stronger commitment to each other and
to the organization. In addition, these feelings of trust and commitment will lead to a more
positive reputation for the firm, as employees are happy to be employed by the organization
and in turn, share their positive feelings with customers and other stakeholders. This
relationship management effort is thought to build long-term relationships for the mutual
benefit of an organization and its stakeholders. As employees have been thought to have
more credibility with the public as representatives of the organization than corporate
communications efforts, their opinions can influence other stakeholders to have a more
positive opinion about the reputation of the firm. Internal communication describes this goal
of communicating richly with employees to engage them in the priorities of the organization.
Face-to-face communication was found to be the best method for building close relationships
with employee publics. This study incorporates findings from employee interviews,
executive interviews, as well as a large-scale survey of employees to better understand the
role of rich communication in the context of relationship management with employees.
iv
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my husband, Aneil, and my children, Maggie and Jack. I
could not have considered going back to school and completing this degree at this stage of
my life without their constant love and support. They all have made many sacrifices on my
behalf, and I am deeply grateful.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am deeply indebted to the professors who guided me through this process, including
my advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Lois Boynton, and my committee members, Mr.
Robert Lauterborn, Dr. Elizabeth Dougall, Dr. Steve May, and Dr. Michael Rappa. They all
have provided me with insights and support that have made this journey worthwhile.
I am also grateful to my J-School friend, Nancy Pawlow, who has been a source of
great support and encouragement to me.
I appreciate the efforts of all employees and executives who participated in my
interviews and surveys. These results would not be possible without their kind support of my
work. In addition, Linda Trevino, a Penn State friend, helped me include her work on media
richness, which has proven to be central to my findings.
In addition, I would also like to thank the Roy H. Park family for their generous gift
to UNC and to the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. This fellowship has
made it possible for me to learn new things without causing my family too much of a
financial hardship.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Problem Definition 1
Study Rationale 7
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11
Publics 12
Organizational Communication 13
Internal Public Relations 15
Inward Marketing 17
Media Richness 18
Building Trusting Relationships 20
Commitment 21
Reputation 23
III. THE CONCEPT OF RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT 26
Research Questions 35
IV. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 37
vii
Qualitative Research 37
Quantitative Research 43
V. RESULTS 55
Qualitative Results 56
Quantitative Results 90
VI. DISCUSSION 114
APPENDICES 137
REFERENCES 178
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Mean demographic responses 91
2. Means for rich communication 92
3. One-Sample T- Test of rich communication measures 93
4. Means of communication richness 94
5. Means and Reliabilities for Relationships with Employee Publics 95
6. Correlations Among Relationships with Employee Publics 95
7. Means of Employee Publics Constructs 96
8. Means for Company Trust 97
9. Means for Managerial Trust 98
10. Correlation Analysis of Trust measures 99
11. Correlation Analysis of Trust and Internal Communication
measures
99
12. Regression Coefficients for Trust and Internal Communication 100
13. Regression Coefficients for Trust and Weighted Internal
Communication
100
14. Means for Affective and Continuance Commitment 101
15. Correlations of Commitment with Internal Communication 102
16. Correlation between firm seniority and affective commitment 103
ix
17. Regression table for Influence on Affective Commitment 104
18. Correlation of Trust and Commitment 105
19. Regression Coefficients for Trust and Affective Commitment 105
20. Descriptive Statistics of Communication Preferences 106
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
A. Theoretical Model 34
B. Mindmap of employees’ perceptions of how communication affects
personal relationships
68
C. Mindmap of executive perceptions of their role in promoting open
communication
87
D. Collective mindmap of employee and executive perceptions 89
E. Communications pie 108
F. Pie chart of reading, writing, talking and listening 118
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Problem Definition
A study by the Great Place To Work Institute found that employees enjoy working in
an environment where they “trust the people they work for, have pride in what they do and
enjoy the people they work with” (Carroll, 2006, p. 1). Business ethics scholar Archie
Carroll argues that ethical organizations take care of their employees, working to build trust
with them through positive communication efforts, as well as demonstrating respect for
employees and acting with integrity in all employee relations. He claims that if management
does not demonstrate honesty, transparency, genuine caring, supportiveness and a
willingness to listen, employees will end up with less trust in management.
Lack of employee commitment leads to lack of ambassadorship by employees on
behalf of their organization. Two research firms, Walker Information and Hudson Institute,
recently joined forces to conduct a nationwide employee loyalty study and found that “Only
24 percent of employees consider themselves truly loyal, committed to their organization and
its goals. If employees feel less involved in the product or service production process, it can
hurt the ultimate relationship with the customer” (Lowenstein, 2006, p. 1). Mathieu, Gilson,
& Ruddy (2006) found that in a team context happy employees provide better service, which
leads to happy, loyal customers. A recent PR Week article (Altus, 2006) supports this claim,
identifying one manager who was quoted as commenting on the reasons for keeping
employees happy, “In our business, clients don’t like change” (p. 9).
2
This dissertation will examine the impact of organizational communication and
relationship management on employee trust, commitment, and firm reputation.
Organizational scholar George Cheney (1999), in his study of the Mondragon Cooperatives,
found that employees are now demanding consideration as an internal market. The use of
internal organizational communication, also referred to as inward marketing by advertising
professor Robert Lauterborn (2005), leads employees to be better customer ambassadors
(Lowenstein, 2006). Employees have important knowledge and skills about both their jobs
and the organization, providing employees the opportunity to be organizational advocates to
the customer, who in turn can enhance the firm’s reputation (Gronstedt, 2000).
Relationship management is the coordination, management, and relationship building
between an organization and its publics with a variety of publics, including investors,
community activists, suppliers, and even employees. Integrated Marketing Communication
scholar Gronstedt (2000) points out that the roles of each of these publics is overlapping, for
instance, both employees and investors are becoming activists, which makes it more
important for organizations to better manage communications between and across these
different publics. Theoretically, relationship management is the practice of building
relationships with an organization’s publics (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) by attempting “to
restore and maintain a sense of community” (Kruckeberg, 2000, p. 145). Relationship has
been defined by Thomlinson (2000) as “as set of expectations two parties have for each
other’s behavior based on their interaction patterns” (p. 178). Increasingly, a focus of this
relationship is how the parties communicate with each other to build the relationship (Toth,
2000), although the mechanics of how this communication takes place and what outcomes it
produces have not been widely studied.
3
To date, employees have been understudied by relationship management scholars.
This may reflect managers’ lack of concern in their own employees. As Cheney (1999)
points out, “Amid the rush toward heightened efficiency and competitiveness is a sense that
most organizations don’t care a great deal about their employees” (p. x). Organizational
communication with employees is potentially insufficient because the emphasis by
organizations is toward external publics about products and services through marketing
communications such as advertising or public relations. Cheney points out that there is an
opportunity to meld the internal and external communications of the organization, instead of
keeping them distinct. Kennan and Hazleton (2000) are among the first to define internal
public relations as an important step in recognizing employees as a distinct public worthy of
individualized attention.
1
As a result of such a narrow focus on marketing communications, employee
communication can suffer, and with it, employee trust and commitment. Cheney (1999)
suggested that values in the workplace can be evaluated by the role communication plays.
Broom, Casey and Ritchey (2000) agree that communication is a critical aspect of how
organization-public relationships are evaluated. Gavin and Mayer (2005) found that internal
communication affects the trust between employees and managers. Additionally, Mishra
(1996) found that “the extent to which the trusted person engages in undistorted
communication then reinforces the trust (in terms of openness) placed in him or her” (p.
276). Organization communication scholars have shown that the adequacy of information
provided by the organization has also contributes to an employees’ job satisfaction
(Rosenfeld, Richman & May, 2004). Communication practices within an organization are
1
Researchers William Kennan and Vincent Hazleton give Public Relations Scholar Carl Botan credit for
prompting them to label the term “internal public relations” (per email correspondence with Dr. Hazleton).
4
expected to have an important influence on the degree to which employees trust their
managers and the organization’s top echelon, as well as their commitment to the
organization.
One key dimension of communication that is expected to influence trust and related
outcomes is its “richness” (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987). Information that is richer (face-
to-face communication) is considered more personalized and reduces uncertainty because it
contains higher quality information (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987). The richness of the
media used to communicate with employees have been found to contribute towards increased
satisfaction and loyalty in an employee-organization context by management scholars Daft,
Lengel, and Trevino (1987) and in a business-to-business context by marketing scholars
Vickery, Droge, Stank, Goldsby, and Markland (2004).
Public relations researcher Tom Kelleher (2001) found that public relations
practitioners relied on written communication while public relations managers relied more on
face-to-face communication. Cheney (1999) also observed that face-to-face communication
is considered more reliable than written communication in a business context because it
provides more information to the other party. It is important to understand if these
differences in communication richness do matter in terms of reliability and trustworthiness
among employees.
Despite researcher agreement about the importance of face-to-face communication,
digital communication has nevertheless become a prevalent method for organizations to
develop relationships both internally and externally, as well as to facilitate information
searches (Gronstedt, 2000; Rappa, 2006). This finding is likely because digital
communication is low-cost and perceived as an efficient way to reach many people. The
5
question remains, however, if it is effective for achieving its desired purpose of conveying
higher quality information, as rich communication has been proven to do. As electronic
media scholar Nicholas Negroponte (1995) admonishes, “the medium is no longer the
message” (p. 61), meaning that there is an explosion of media with which to communicate,
resulting in less emphasis on using one medium, but a new emphasis on integrating multiple
types of media, such as email, video, etc.
In the public relations literature, trust is considered a critical aspect of the
organization-public relationship (Botan & Taylor, 2004). In an earlier study, Bruning and
Ledingham (2000) found that trust had a significant impact on customer satisfaction. In
addition, Wilson (1994) found that both employee and public perceptions of commitment,
trust and mutual respect are important for understanding organization-public relationships.
All of these findings focus on the relationship aspect of publics and the positive impact on
customer satisfaction and firm reputation yet fail to consider the impact of communication on
that relationship or on the relationship with other stakeholders. Paine (2003), in her
“Guidelines for measuring trust in organizations” specified that organizations should make
sure to ask several questions prior to measuring trust in organizations, including “Which
channels of communication were used and/or deemed most important to use in disseminating
the messages? (e.g., the media…word-of-mouth…direct mail…special events?)” (p. 11).
When an employee develops a relationship with external stakeholders, s/he can become an
“ambassador” of that firm. Therefore, relationships exist not only between an organization
and its publics, but relationships between an organization’s different publics are also
important. In addition, employees can take on multiple roles, including that of investor and
activist, as well as employee (Dougall, 2005; Gronstedt, 2000). If employees are considered
6
an important public, they can be an important source of relationships with other publics, such
as customers.
Communication between employees and external publics may be critical for building
trust between the organization and those publics, and for enhancing the organization’s
reputation. Public relations scholars Grunig and Huang (2000) suggest that an organization’s
reputation is an outcome of its behaviors that a public remembers. Recent studies
demonstrate that consumers trust communication from employees more than they trust
communication from upper-level members of an organization, such as CEOs (Edelman,
2006; Keller & Berry, 2000). This finding stems from the publics general distrust of
advertising and their growing trust in getting information from “someone like me” (Keller &
Berry, 2000). Plummer (2005) recognized that corporate reputation is at stake because of the
scandals occurring at large corporations such as Enron or Tyco, and he admonished firms to
pay more attention to their reputation.
Reputation is becoming recognized as an asset to be managed and firms are now
starting to hire Chief Reputation Officers, or CROs (Gaines-Ross, 2006). GlaxoSmithKline
PLC created the position of vice president of corporate image and reputation (Alsop, 2004).
This executive is charged with talking with employees and external stakeholders to help them
understand the company’s perspective. In general, CROs are being hired to monitor and
manage a firm’s external reputation by monitoring how various stakeholders perceive the
firm. In addition, CROs are responsible for managing the communications that come from
the firm in order to enhance firm reputation. These CROs, then, are acting as ambassadors to
both internal markets, such as employees, and external markets, such as customers.
7
An emphasis on rich communication between the organization and its employees will
reap benefits not only with building closer employee relationships, but will enhance the
reputation of the firm by building stronger relationships with important external stakeholders,
as well.
Study Rationale
Studying internal communication is important because it is a valuable means of
building trust between employees and management. Grossman (2006) cited a Zogby poll
that showed that 98% of those surveyed believe that trust and honesty are important in the
workplace, but fully 69% rated their leaders as “low” in these traits. By focusing on the use
of internal communication between an organization’s leadership and its employees
(Gronstedt, 2000), a common vision can emerge between the organization and its employees.
Effective organizational communication is important for building critical
relationships that harness the enthusiasm, loyalty (Reichheld, 2001) and trust (Mishra &
Mishra, 2005) of an organization’s employees by creating shared values. Martin Marietta
CEO Steve Zelnak, in an interview with Sky Radio (2006) emphasized that ethical
communication and decision making produces a track record of achievement for the firm,
and makes them an “employer of choice.”
Public relations scholars Botan and Taylor (2004) identified the most striking trend in
public relations as the co-creational perspective. In this perspective, relationships with an
organization’s publics are seen as important to the co-development of shared meaning or
shared values. As a result, it is important to understand how organizations co-create this
meaning with employees. Communication practices are expected to be a critical means to
creating such meaning. This practice of co-creating meaning is relationship management,
8
which is the theoretical construct that underpins this study. Relationship management is the
practice of building strong relationships with all constituents by public relations
professionals.
One type of communication practice, inward marketing (Lauterborn, 2004), internal
communication (Deetz, 1992), or internal public relations (IPR) (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006),
is often overlooked as being common sense (Davis, 2000), and is usually left to the devices
of the human resources department at the policy-making level. However, there is a new
emphasis on promoting dialogue internally within organizations (Gronstedt, 2000) in order to
encourage employees to understand and even promote an organization’s shared meaning to
external stakeholders. By providing employees with more of a voice and role in managing
the workplace, IPR provides the potential for creating shared meaning, which in turn builds
the basis for a trusting and committed relationship between an organization and its
employees.
Gronstedt (2000), an academic turned consultant, identifies many firms that use
internal marketing, such as Xerox, where front-line workers are empowered to act as
“customer advocates” (p. 30), but acknowledges that this concept has a long way to go until
it is fully accepted by corporate America. This approach is similar to previous Total Quality
Management approaches, where lower-level employees were encouraged to participate in
improving quality from the bottom-up (Omachonu & Ross, 2004; Oakland, 2003). This
approach was considered a fad by employees because organizations did not know how to
fully implement these programs nor reward those who participated in improving the quality
of the end product.
9
Communication has been identified by marketing scholars Morgan and Hunt (1994)
as an important ingredient in building relationships between an organization and its
customers or stakeholders. In the public relations and marketing literatures, however,
communication, has not been explicated so that managers understand the best communication
methods for improving those relationships. Management scholars, Daft, Lengel, and Trevino
(1987) developed the concept of “media richness” to identify how much information a
communication method provides between two parties. This concept of “media richness”
might provide more information about the communication methods that are most effective in
achieving organizational objectives.
The concept of rich media has been extended from its original context (Daft, Lengel,
& Trevino, 1987) to include the use of digital communication such as email, intranets, and
forums within a business-to-business setting (Vickery et al., 2004), but not within the
organization-employee context. Gronstedt (2000) noted that the newer forms of digital
communication would offer many benefits for the communication experience, including
efficiency and immediacy. He also noted that the more personal methods of face-to-face
communication were most effective for building trust and solving complex problems. Public
relations scholars Grunig and Hon (1999) also identify the impact of digital communication
or new media as an important aspect to study in the research on publics and trust. They
predicted that digital communication would increase in importance as organizations would
continue to build relationships with publics even in cyberspace. It is not clear, however,
whether digital communication is perceived by employees as being as rich as face-to-face
communication or non-digital written communication.
10
In summary, this study will examine how organizations utilize the rich media at their
disposal to engage the trust and commitment of their employees and whether or not this
communication process affects the reputation of the firm as identified by employees and
Fortune magazine. This study will examine the communication methods of four firms—a
software firm, a financial services firm, a retail firm, and to understand how they use multiple
methods of communication including face-to-face communication, written communication,
and digital communication to build relationships with their employees.
This study drew on a variety of literatures, starting with the public relations concept
of an organization’s publics. Publics are those stakeholders identified as critical to the
organization’s mission. Employees are often an overlooked public, and will be the focus of
this study. In addition, the concept of organizational communication, drawing from both the
management and communication studies literatures are critical to understanding how
organizations communicate with their employee publics. One aspect that this study will
survey is the impact of media richness (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987) on organizational
communication and how it builds trust and commitment with their employee public. Finally,
internal public relations (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006) is the name given to communication
with employee publics. Aspects of this relatively new term will be examined from both the
public relations and the IMC perspectives in the literature review in the following chapter.
The dissertation that follows includes a literature review, followed by the methods
chapter that details the specifics of the study, as well as the list of survey and interview
questions, and how the data were analyzed. The interview and survey questions all appear in
the appendices.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter is designed to explicate terms that are key in identifying employees as a
public, the approach to communication with employees, and the goals of that
communication.
The literature used in this study will draw on a variety of inter-related disciplines,
including public relations, organizational communication, management, and integrated
marketing communications. The first literature addressed is the public relations concept of
an organization’s publics. Publics are those stakeholders identified as critical to the
organization’s mission (Dewey, 1927). Friedman (1970) emphasized an organization’s
duties to its stockholders, or those who had invested financially to reap the profits of the firm.
In contrast, Post, Preston and Sachs (2002) identify stakeholders, or any party participating in
the creation of value for the firm, which include employees.
Second, the organizational communication literature, drawing from both the
management and communication studies disciplines is critical to understanding how
organizations communicate with their employee publics. This focus on employees as publics
has been termed “internal public relations” by Kennan and Hazleton (2006, p. 311). The
marketing communications perspective calls this inward marketing (Lauterborn, 2005). This
term is important to understanding how public relations professionals should include
12
employees in their strategic focus, as well as how public relations professionals can do this
tactically.
Finally, this study will survey the impact of media richness (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino,
1987) on organizational communication and how it allows the organization to build trust and
commitment with its employee public, as well as how it upholds the firm’s reputation with its
external publics.
Publics
Publics have been defined in a variety of ways in the extant literature. Early in the
20
th
century, Dewey (1927) identified publics as groups of people with a common purpose
who are organized to act. Decades later, Ehling, White, and Grunig (1992) described publics
as distinct from markets. Publics are more social and personal than abstract markets.
Dougall (2005) also described the label of public as one who has a stake in the organization’s
future. Carroll and Buchholtz (2000) identified a five-step method for stakeholder analysis
which entails 1) identifying who the stakeholders are, 2) understanding what their stakes are,
3) identifying the opportunities and challenges presented by the stakeholders to the firm, 4)
considering the firm’s responsibilities to its stakeholders, and 5) selecting strategies for
dealing with stakeholders such as collaboration, defense, negotiation, etc. Once publics are
distinct, methods for communicating with them must be set in place.
Grunig’s (1989) excellence study asserted that two-way communication between an
organization and its publics was more ethical than one-way communication, yet public
relations ethics scholar Jacquie L’Etang (1996) observed that organizations with more power
than their publics have less interest in participating in symmetrical or two-way
communication. Management scholar Jim Miles’ (1987) study of insurance companies found
13
that collaborative problem-solving was the first strategy of firms aiming to develop long-term
relationships with stakeholders based on trust and communication.
This literature focusing on publics is important to understanding the concept of
relationship management, which analyzes the variety of publics that an organization must
manage and advocates the use of building relationships as an effective way for public
relations professionals to engage with their publics (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). One of
the ways an organization builds relationships with its publics is through its communication
efforts.
Organizational Communication
Organizational communication is critical for building trusting relationships between
employees and the organization (Mayer & Gavin, 2005) that are open and honest (Mishra &
Mishra, 2005). Deetz (1992) contends that communication between a company and its
employees is not participatory or effective unless it is interactive. He suggests that
communication is effective when understanding is achieved between the parties who are
communicating. He also suggests that there be opportunity for both parties to express
themselves to each other in an authentic manner. For instance, interactive communication,
such as a public forum, would provide an opportunity for each party to contribute to the
exchange, as opposed to a news release, which does not allow room for two-way
communication and feedback.
Organization communication to employee publics, however, has often been
overlooked as a less-important part of a managers’ job (Bobo, 2000). Communication
efforts are often taken for granted as managers believe that employees already know what is
happening in the organization or that they might not really care (Davis, 2000). Instead of
14
relying on traditional ways of communicating via newsletters or weekly staff meetings, there
is a renewed emphasis on promoting dialogue with employees and facilitating learning
(Davis, 2000) both face-to-face and by utilizing new media, such as internal blogging and
intranet forums. In the 1980s, this type of effort would have been described as Total Quality
Management (TQM). TQM had its drawbacks, as employees saw it as the fad of the month,
and not a sincere effort to promote dialogue (Paine, 1994).
Information studies scholars Leah Lievrouw and Andrew Finn (1990) identified the
dimensions of communication model in which communication is presumed to be mediated,
but will range in its degree of involvement, control and temporality (Thomlinson, 2000).
Communications author Jacquelyn B. Carr (1991) agreed that interpersonal communication
is important in building relationships because the parties involved are critical to what is
communicated.
In examining how companies utilize corporate communication efforts, Gronstedt
(2000) identifies the differences in communication styles as “high-tech” vs. “high-touch.”
He argues that both are necessary to communicate effectively both within and outside of the
organization. “The high-tech ways of online communications offer unprecedented efficiency
in transactions, deliveries, information retrieval, and immediacy of communication. The
high-touch vehicle of personal meetings, on the other hand, is unrivaled in its knack for
bonding, building trust, developing ideas, and solving complex problems” (p. 219). This
integration of high-tech, high-touch media is one way that communication can be further
integrated to promote shared values between an organization and its stakeholders. Digital
communication scholar Nicholas Negroponte (1995) points out that “one channel of
communication might provide the information missing in the other” (p. 98). In addition, he
15
concluded that digital communication will allow people to seek out information rather than
information being imposed on them. Vickery et al. (2004) suggested that the integration of
media will result in a feeling of “closeness to the provider” (p. 1118).
Organizational communication efforts aimed at employees must allow for two-way
communication in order to build trust between the two parties. Organizations often aim
communication at employees, and thus, do not allow for feedback or even a way for
employees to initiate communication. Digital communication is becoming more prevalent as
organizations rely on email and the intranet to push communication out to employees. This
study will test how employees perceive these efforts, their perceptions of the richness of
these communication methods, as well as their perceptions of its effectiveness and provision
for two-way communication.
Internal Public Relations
The move towards workplace democracy (Deetz, 1992) was supposed to empower
employees to have a voice in their places of work, similar to the total quality management
movement. The hope of creating such a climate was that organizations could focus on
fostering dialogue with employees as a means of building effective relationships.
Practitioner evidence suggests that workplace democracy is still evolving and that more
efforts are needed to strengthen those relationships between the organization and its
employee public. Communication efforts between an organization and its employees are
often studied in the organizational communication discipline as a way to create participatory
communication. Public relations scholars are finally discovering that a focus on employees
as a distinct public is just as important as a focus on external publics.
16
Kennan and Hazleton (2006) are among the first public relations scholars to propose
internal public relations, or IPR as a public relations practice. This concept differs from
employee communication in its emphasis on treating employees as a distinct and important
public, and providing for feedback and two-way communication, as opposed to the old ways
of one-way communication. Kennan and Hazleton found that despite this move to workplace
democracy, IPR are still rare and one-way, moving from the organization to the employee
only. They claim that “success at internal public relations, then, lies not in planning, control,
or cooperation, but in the effective management of group relationships to produce an
environment in which task accomplishment is enhanced” (p. 315). Their view of internal
public relations is one of empowering employees to harness the skills and abilities they bring
as opposed to management attempting to control their actions, creating a more proactive and
interactive role for employees. Kennan and Hazleton’s conception of internal public
relations puts workforce democracy into practice.
Kennan and Hazleton (2006) also identify social capital as a binding force that will
encourage employees to become more engaged with the organization’s mission through
effective communication. Social capital is the glue that binds a community together, such as
shared values and a sense of community. They argue that building both trust and
identification is critical to the understanding of the importance of social capital in internal
public relations. They also argue that communication is the vehicle through which IPR is
accomplished. This can bring about varying levels of social capital within an organization,
such as “productivity, efficiency, quality, customer satisfaction, net asset value, stock value,
employee satisfaction, employee commitment, organizational adaptation, etc.” (p. 330).
17
Internal public relations is a concept which recognizes that employees are an
important and distinct public. The integrated marketing communications literature describes
this focus on employee communication as inward marketing. These concepts, while
developed in different disciplines, are similar in orientation.
Inward Marketing
Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn introduced the concept of integrated marketing
communication in 1992, argue that organizations must not approach communications from
the inside-out (or from the organization’s perspective), but from the outside-in, thereby
communicating with customers from their perspective in ways and in places where they will
be most receptive to the message. Lauterborn’s (2004) idea of inward marketing states that
organizations must consider their first stakeholders when preparing this integrated plan—
their employees. By including employees as a distinct public or stakeholder in a marketing
communications plan, an organization will build trust with employees as well as harness their
enthusiasm and commitment to the organization with other stakeholders. This approach is
similar to Gronstedt’s (2000) notion of integrating communications vertically from
employees to middle management to top management. Gronstedt found that firms that
integrate vertical communication are better able to communicate their values and brand
promises to customers, which in turn ultimately improve the reputation of the firm.
Inward marketing is an action by the marketing staff that considers employees as
important of an audience as any external audience. If internal marketing is taken seriously,
Gronstedt (2000) has shown that it can have a positive effect on building trust with
employees. The concept of trust and its impact on relationship building is explicated in the
18
following section with the following goals of building trust, commitment and ultimately
positively affecting the company’s reputation.
Media Richness
Managers in organizations use a variety of ways or media to communicate with
employees. A manager’s use of “rich media” (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987) varies in its
ability to convey social cues in order to reduce uncertainty and equivocality. “Medium
richness was originally proposed by Daft and Lengel (1986) as an objective characteristic of
a medium -- in which richer media are higher in immediate feedback, multiple cues, natural
language, and personal focus. Later, social influence theorists (e.g., Fulk, 1993) proposed
that richness should be considered at least partially perceptual because media can be
perceived differently by different people in different social contexts” (Trevino, 2006). Media
richness is a misnomer when considered from the mass communications context because
face-to-face communication, for instance, is not mediated communication while email
communication is mediated through use of a computer.
In a study of middle- and upper-level managers, Daft, Lengel, and Trevino (1987)
found that managers match the type of media used to communicate with employees with the
task before them. Their typology of rich media ranges from high media richness (i.e., face-
to-face communication) to low media richness (i.e., unaddressed documents). They placed
the telephone and personalized documents in between the extremes. They found that for tasks
that are ambiguous, managers use more face-to-face, personalized communication, or rich
media. In addition, they found that for tasks that are less ambiguous and more straight-
forward, managers are more likely to employ less rich media, or communication that is
written and less personalized. The concept of rich media is important to understanding how
19
organizational communication is developed between managers and subordinates. It is also
important to understand how both managers and employees perceive the richness of their
present communication efforts, in order to understand the levels of trust and commitment by
employees.
In later work, Trevino, Webster, and Stein (2000) included electronic media in their
study of media richness and found that media choice by managers was influenced by
perceived medium richness. They discovered that managers’ new media choice was
influenced by perceptions of human/technology interactions and perceptions of media
richness. In other words, managers chose what media to use based on their perceptions of
how their employees would react to that medium, as well as how adept they were to using the
chosen media. This discomfort with newer mediums could be as a result of their
unavailability or inaccessibility to them during their formative working years. They also
found, however, that media symbolism was more important than media richness in the
selection of which media to use in disseminating information. Media symbolism represents
how others would perceive a message in that particular media format, for example, face-to-
face communication conveys more immediacy than a letter, which is more formal and less
immediate. They had mixed results with email communication, however, finding that some
employees found it immediate, while others did not, calling for more research on how
individuals perceive the sending and receiving of email messages.
A more recent study by Vickery et al. (2004) in a business-to-business context found
that suppliers did consider digital communication “relatively rich” (p. 1116). This finding
suggests that organizations might be better at integrating rich media with external publics
than they are with internal publics. This concept of integrating rich media in internal
20
communication requires further exploration, especially since email is such an integral
element in day-to-day management/employee communications. There is limited public
relations scholarship on the concept of media richness. Public relations scholar Kelleher
(2001) did discover that public relations managers primarily utilize face-to-face
communication and public relations practitioners primarily rely on written communication.
They both use email communication similarly.
The concept of media richness (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987) has power to dissect
the types of communication efforts organizations use with employees to determine whether
or not these communication methods build relationships with employees in an internal public
relations effort, and in turn, build trust and commitment with that employee public.
Building Trusting Relationships
The concept of trust has not been precisely explicated (Kramer, 1999). Management
scholar Rod Kramer contends that while trust is agreed to be an important concept, its precise
definition is not universally agreed upon. Trust is generally thought to be a general attitude
or expectancy about trust (Luhmann, 1988). Lewis and Weigert (1985) define trust as the
undertaking of a risky course of action of the expectation that the other person will act
dutifully. Management scholar Andrew DuBrin (2000) described the process of creating
trusting relationships between management and employees through openness and meaningful
exchanges. Public relations scholar Joy Chia (2005) affirmed that “trust and commitment are
byproducts of processes and policies which are designed to make the relationship satisfactory
for both parties, such as open, appropriate, clear and timely communication” (p. 7). Trust
can be conveyed through effective communication (Mishra & Mishra, 1994) via openness
and concern. Kirkpatrick and Lock (1991) define openness in terms of employee perceptions
21
of a leader’s openness and honesty and their ability to foster innovation and bring about
positive change.
In addition, Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo (1983) describe the actions between
employees and an organization as a cultural “performance” that provides the executive the
opportunity to show personal strength, or the strength of their character as a way to build
openness in the organization, as well. Leaders who are more clear and open in their
communication foster greater trust by their subordinates (Mishra, 1996). Previous research in
the management discipline has found that trust is positively related to organizational
commitment in a variety of organizational contexts (Aryee, Budhwar & Chen, 2002;
Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997; Brockner, Spreitzer, Mishra, Hochwarter,
Pepper, & Weinberg, 2004).
These public relations and management studies demonstrate the importance of
communication efforts in building trust. What has not been explored are the specific
communication methods that are most effective to building those trusting relationships. In
addition, there is a need to understand how these efforts to use effective communication are
able to build trust and impact employee commitment. The management literature focuses on
how trust builds commitment, but fails to acknowledge the role of communication in those
efforts.
Commitment
For years, loyalty was one aspect of relationship building that was not able to be
operationalized in such as way as to be quantified, but managers knew intuitively was a
worthy goal. Loyalty is defined as a positive feeling of attachment to an organization,
whether or not one works for the organization or is one of its external publics (Meyer &
22
Allen, 1997). Commitment, on the other hand, emphasizes the role of attachment felt by
employees and their desire to remain employed by the organization. Organizational
consultant Fred Reichheld’s (1996) study demonstrated that it cost more to gain new
customers and employees than to retain existing ones. More recently, Reichheld (2001)
defined truly loyal employees as those who have “responsibility and accountability for
building successful, mutually valuable relationships” (p. 12) with customers. One of the
organizations Reichheld highlights is Dell computer. Michael Dell comment reflects the
importance of personal empowerment and accountability: “You need to engender a sense of
personal investment in all your employees—which comes down to three things:
responsibility, accountability, and shared success. Mobilize your people around a common
goal. Help them to feel part of something genuine, special and important, and you’ll inspire
real passion and loyalty” (p. 35).
Commitment is used interchangeably with loyalty, although commitment conveys a
more permanent state. In particular, Meyer and Allen (1997) noted that “committed
employees are more likely to remain in the organization than are uncommitted employees”
(p. 11). They identified three types of commitment: affective, continuance, and normative
commitment. Affective commitment is a desire to maintain membership in an organization
based on an emotional attachment, an acceptance of or identification with the organization’s
values, and an involvement in the organization. They reported that “employees with strong
affective commitment to the organization work harder at their jobs and perform them better
than do those with weak commitment” (p. 28). Continuance commitment is “an awareness of
the costs of leaving the organization” (p. 11). Finally, normative commitment refers to a
feeling that an employee “ought to remain with the organization” (p. 11). Overall, Meyer
23
and Allen (1997) demonstrate that affective commitment provides the strongest indicator of
performance outcomes on the organization. Although they focus on the effect of
management practices on commitment, they highlight the need for more of a focus on the
role of communication in building commitment.
A feeling of commitment by employees can have a positive effect on the external
reputation of the firm. Black (2004) found that employees who were not committed to their
firms, acted to hide their affiliation with their employer, resulting in a negative reputation for
that firm.
Reputation
There is debate among public relations practitioners and scholars whether or not
reputation is something that can be “managed” (Hutton, Goodman, Alexander, & Genest,
2001). Yang and Grunig (2005) assert that reputation and relationship have similarities but
distinctions should be drawn between terms. This distinction is important to the theory of
relationship management because the goal is to manage important relationships with key
publics. The ultimate result of a well-managed relationship should be a positive firm
reputation.
Public relations scholars James G. Hutton, Michael B. Goodman, Jill B. Alexander
and Christina M. Genest (2001) asked Fortune 500 practitioners to rank eight goals in their
corporate communications efforts: “managing reputation” lead other public relations roles,
with “manage relationships with publics” trailing behind in seventh place. They also note,
however, at that time, no public relations textbooks incorporated reputation management as
part of the definition. These authors questioned whether public relations practitioners can
really manage the reputation of the firm, considering reputation is made up of a public’s
24
evaluation of all of the firm’s activities, many of which public relations professionals have no
control over. Reputation is an additional area that requires further study, to determine
whether or not effective management of employee publics in turn leads to a positive firm
reputation. Such a finding would provide evidence that public relations professionals can
have some control over firm reputation.
Advertising Industry Association executive Joe Plummer (2005) identified corporate
reputation as an important area for marketing communication scholars to renew their research
efforts, with the loss of the public’s trust in the credibility of American corporations.
Management scholars Charles Fombrun and Mark Shanley (1990) recognized that firms
serve multiple publics, each of which “selectively attend to different informational cues, or
signals, in judging its effectiveness” (p. 234). They suggest that reputations are a cumulative
assessment of the publics’ judgments over time. Those judgments include information about
a firm’s profitability, as well as other non-economic factors, such as how they demonstrate
their concern for society. They determined that non-economic factors have an equally
important impact on firm reputation as economic factors. For instance, they found that
profitable firms such as Pepsi had lower than expected reputation ratings. This assertion
suggests that publics rely on multiple information cues for information regarding firm
reputation and include a variety of factors in their reputation judgment. Yang and Grunig
(2005) successfully demonstrated that the result of an organization’s relationship with its
publics will impact its reputation and organizational performance.
One method for analyzing a firm’s reputation is to use the Fortune’s “Most Admired”
annual ranking of companies by reputation. Hutton et al. (2001) used the Fortune ranking as
a reputation outcome and correlated this indicator with their survey items. They found that
25
“companies with certain corporate communication philosophies were more likely to have
strong reputations” (p. 255). Because the Fortune ranking is an accepted method for
analyzing reputation, this will be used in this study, as well.
This chapter explicates the terms that are important for understanding the role and
function of relationship management. The following chapter discusses the concept of
relationship management as a theoretical foundation for the study of an organization and its
employee public.
CHAPTER 3
THE CONCEPT OF RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to define the theoretical basis for this dissertation:
relationship management. This chapter will review the studies that have employed this
theoretical concept and will show how this theory could be applied more broadly to include
employees as a significant public.
Relationship management is the focused attention of public relations professionals to
create mutually beneficial relationships with their publics, including customers, investors,
and the community (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). According to public relations scholars
Glen Broom, Shawna Casey, and James Ritchey (2000), “Relationships represent the
exchange of information, energy, or resources” (p. 15). Public relations scholar Dean
Thomlinson (2000) defines a relationship as “a set of expectations two parties have for each
other’s behavior based on their interaction patterns” (p. 178). While public relations has
always had a focus on managing its publics (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1994), only with
public relations researcher Mary Anne Ferguson’s (1984) call to focus on the relationship
with those publics has the concept and practice of relationship management grown. Rather
than merely focusing on garnering public attention as early practitioners practiced public
relations, this relatively new focus is on building long-term relationships for the benefit of
both parties. Public relations scholars Dean Kruckeberg and Kenneth Starck (1988) argued
27
that “public relations is best defined and practiced as the active attempt to restore and
maintain a sense of community” (p. xi).
Ledingham and Bruning (2000), who established the concept of relationship
management, identify several concepts or “dimensions” (p. 58) of relationship management.
Those concepts are openness, trust, involvement, investment, and commitment. Mishra
(1996) identified openness as a key aspect of how trust is built between people and/or
organizations. Involvement, investment, and commitment are similar to the concepts of
affective and continuance commitment, as articulated by management scholars John Meyer
and Natalie Allen (1984). Thus far, relationship management has focused on external publics
such as investors, customers, and the community-at-large, but this concept has value for the
study of internal public relations, as well. Employees are becoming a more important public
for organizations to consider in their mix of integrated marketing communications, both
internally and externally. Employees are identified as a more credible source of information
by customers (Keller & Berry, 2003) and they themselves are finding their roles outside and
inside of work overlapping, as they become activists and investors (Gronstedt, 2000). The
next section will address the importance of communication in the practice of relationship
management. The relationship management concept is large in scope, and employee
communication makes up one part of that concept.
The role of communication
Harvard Business School professor emeritus Richard Walton (1969) was among the
first to identify the importance of communication in an organization-public relationship,
calling it “the most significant factor accounting for the total behavior of the organization.”
In addition, he suggested that “the dynamic of the organization can best be understood by
28
understanding its systems of communication” (p. 105). Public relations researcher Carl H.
Botan (1992) also advocated a focus on communication as the center of building
relationships with publics. In addition to identifying the importance of positive organization-
public communication, public relations researcher Laurie Wilson (1994) conceptualized
those positive communications between an organization and its publics, and conceptualized
those positive relationships that result as corporate social responsibility. Specifically, she
identified the significance of perceptions employees and other publics have about honesty,
commitment, trust, and mutual respect. Public relations scholars J. N. Capella (1991) and
David Dozier (1995) suggested that the relationship could be best characterized by how the
parties communicate with each other. If organizations practice excellent public relations
(Grunig, 1993), then their communication efforts must allow for two-way communication
and not just one-way communication. If this assertion is true, then we should be able to
measure communication going both ways—outward from the organization to its publics and
back from its publics to the organization. Thomlinson (2000) would suggest that a two-way
method of communication between two publics would be of a transactional nature in which
each party sends and receives messages to the other, whether intended or not. Grunig and
Huang (2000) contend that we must consider the two-way nature of communication in
relationship management and recognize its importance on both the organization and its
publics in building relationships with each other.
Many scholars have focused on the importance of communication in relationship
management. Ledingham’s and Bruning’s (2000) study of a telecommunications company
found that a managed communications program can influence perceptions of the organization
as well as affect the behavior of public members. Specifically, they found that “when the
29
organization engages in action and communication that facilitates a sense of openness, trust,
commitment, involvement, and investment, it builds the symbolic and behavioral
relationships with key publics that J. E. Grunig (1993) contends are critical to effective
organizations” (p. 65). Bruning and Ledingham suggest that communication be used as a
vehicle in building all phases of a relationship from initiation to repair. Other scholars agree
that communication is important for organizations in building successful relationships with
its publics. Rosenfeld, Richman, and May’s (2004) study of field and headquarter employees
argued that in order to build trust and mutual gain, organizations must work to develop
constant and sufficient communication. They found that organizations must, first and
foremost, determine what information should be communicated to employees, rather than
focusing on how much communication is necessary. They also suggested that an
organization consider how to most effectively disseminate that information as well as how to
solicit feedback from employees. Public relations scholar Elizabeth Toth (2000) also
contends that successful relationships between an organization and its publics are established
and maintained through interpersonal communication.
In his call for public relations to become more globally professional, public relations
scholar Dean Kruckeberg (2000) identified the advances in communication technology as
impetus for making the community building aspect of public relations even more important.
Management scholars Dick Daft, Robert Lengel, and Linda Trevino’s (1987) theory of media
richness can enhance this understanding of how communication technology affects an
organization’s communication with its publics and ultimately its sense of community as a
public because public relations scholars have not stopped to consider what the best methods
are of communicating various types of information to its publics, whether externally or
30
internally, such as employees. If an organization better understands the communication
methods that publics prefer, they will be able to build greater levels of trust in those
relationships through those trusted communication channels and methods.
The importance of trust
Trust is defined a willingness to be vulnerable to others (Granovetter, 1985; Lewis &
Weigert, 1985), based on the prior belief that those others are reliable, honest, competent,
and benevolent (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Public relations scholars James
Grunig, Larissa Grunig, and William Ehling (1992) were among the first to propose that
many attributes led to the cultivation of relationships with publics, including “reciprocity,
trust, credibility, mutual legitimacy, openness, mutual satisfaction, and mutual
understanding” (p. 83) as the most important concepts to measure in building strategic
relationships with an organization’s publics. Trust has been found in previous research to
improve and repair relationships between organizations and organizational members (e.g.,
Mishra, 1996). Vercic and Grunig (1995) also identified trust as contributing to the longevity
of an organization.
Grunig and Huang (2000) contend that successful relationships between an organization
and its publics emerge from mutual trust. Kruckeberg (2000) suggested that shared values
can contribute to building trust in a relationship thereby ultimately reaching a strategic
objective. Bruning and Ledingham (2000) called for research into a more complete
definition of trust. Although there has been a great deal of research on trust in both the
public relations and management literatures, there does not seem to be consensus about the
specific definition of trust or how trust is built. Specifically, communication is seen as
contributing to the development of trust, but its form or development has not been agreed
31
upon. This study will examine which communication methods are perceived as more
trustworthy by employee publics, which will contribute to a greater understanding of how
trusting relationships are built through communication.
Employees as publics
There is a need for public relations research to consider employees as an important
public. Huang (1997) defined organization-public relationships based on their exchanges of
communication, trust, satisfaction, influence, and commitment. Grunig, Grunig and Dozier
(2006) declared that by identifying which publics are most critical an organization can
become more effective.
Employees are an important public but are often overlooked by organizations in favor
of external publics such as customers. Grunig (1993) indicated that good relationships with
employees led to job satisfaction, which Grunig and Huang (2000) said helped ensure
employers actively work toward fulfilling the mission of the organization. Wilson (2000)
also identified employees as important publics to consider in relationship management
theory. In addition, Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2006) found that organizations that
empower employees and other stakeholders place a higher value on public relations. They
also found that empowered employees will be more likely to participate in decision making
and symmetrical communication both internally and externally with customers. Similarly,
public relations scholars Samsup Jo and Sungwook Shim (2005) found that employees who
receive positive communication from management are inclined to form more trusting
relationships with them.
32
One method for studying employees as publics is to ascertain the degree of mutuality
in the relationship with the organization. Ledingham (2006) suggested that “mutuality is the
concept upon which long-term organization-public relationships are constructed” (p. 477).
Finally, it is important to understand the impact the trusting communication with
employees has on the firm’s reputation. Public relations scholars Yang and Grunig (2005)
contend that what publics think of a firm is the firm’s reputation. In their study, they found
that relationship management leads to a positive reputation. The effect of relationship
management on reputation is not widely studied, however, especially from the viewpoint of
the employee public.
The role of reputation
James E. Grunig (1993) found that reputation is an outcome of relationship
management because reputation is how an organization’s publics perceive of it. International
public relations scholar Elizabeth Dougall (2005) described the importance of the “public
opinion environment” as it measures the regard or esteem held by publics (p. 210). This
“public opinion environment” is the sum of judgments about a firm and affects the firm’s
reputation. Other research found that organizations should not just be concerned with their
reputations with external publics, but with their employees, as well. Public relations scholar
Leeora Black (2004) found in her dissertation research that when a banking organization was
not working in the best interests of both its employees and the community, employees were
embarrassed to be found working for that firm, as evidenced by the fact that they removed
their bank insignia clothing before leaving work so that the general public would not know
where they worked.
33
Indeed, organizations are scrutinized publicly for whether or not they are being good
corporate citizens. One study found that customers consider a firm to be socially responsible
if it first takes good care of their employees. Pratt (2006) identified what he calls a
“responsibility gap” between what an organization does and what a public thinks it ought to
do. Pratt suggests that “it is imperative that organization take stock on how their programs
affect both their reputation and their profit margin” (p. 272). A study by the National
Consumer’s League (2006) found that consumers believe that firm’s should prioritize
employees above charitable acts. This commitment by an organization to its employees will
likely result in mutual commitment by employees back to the organization.
The role of commitment
There is limited research on the role of commitment between an organization and its
publics. Grunig and Huang (2000) see the level of commitment as a barometer of the health
of the relationship. Meyer and Allen (1997) found that affective or emotional commitment
as well as continuance commitment built trust between parties. Therefore, it is expected that
feelings of mutual trust will lead to feelings of commitment both by employees and the
organization.
Summary
Hence, the literature exposes a number of areas that need additional attention through
scholarly research. First, in the theory of relationship management, many scholars have
focused on the important role that communication plays in building those relationships, yet
have not specifically defined what types of communication are most effective. Second, trust
has been found to be a critical outcome of building those relationships, yet the process of
how trust is built also has not been defined. Third, most relationship management literature
34
stresses the importance of building relationships with external publics and this study will
examine the internal public of employees. Fourth, limited research has been done to
demonstrate the outcome of commitment as a result of these relationship management
efforts, and more can be done to assess what motivates an employee to be committed to an
organization. Finally, the role of reputation is important because the way employees are
included as an important public has been found to influence customer perceptions of
satisfaction with the organization (Sparks, Bradley, & Callan, 1997).
Therefore, as seen in the theoretical model in Figure A, it is expected that rich
communication between an organization and its employee public will lead to enhanced trust
and commitment on the part of employees, which in turn will lead to a positive reputation for
the firm. This model leads me to consider the following research questions and hypotheses.
Figure A. Theoretical Model
Firm
Reputation
Employee’s
Trust in the
Organization
or Top
Management
Team
(TMT)
Commitment
Perceived Rich
communication
sent to employees
Opportunities to
communicate for
employees
35
Research Questions
Based on a review of the previous literature, the following research questions are
proposed.
RQ: How do organizations communicate with employees to create trusting
relationships with employees?
RQ: How do organizations communicate with employees to create a sense of
commitment with employees?
RQ: How do organizations communicate with employees to create a positive
reputation with employees and with customers?
In addition, the following hypotheses are proposed.
H1: Employees are more likely to receive rich communication from their managers
when their firms convey new product information.
H2a: Employees’ perceptions of control mutuality will be positively related to their
sense of a communal relationship.
H2b: Employees’ perceptions of control mutuality will be negatively related to their
sense of an exchange relationship.
H2c: Employees’ perceptions of communal relationships will be negatively related to
their sense of an exchange relationship
H3: A higher use of internal communication with employee publics will be positively
related to employee trust in the organization.
H4: Internal communication with employee publics enhances employee commitment
to the organization.
36
H5: Internal communication with employee publics results in a stronger firm
reputation among internal publics.
H6: Trust will be positively related to commitment.
These research questions and hypotheses will be explored and tested using a mixed-
methods approach of interviews and surveys. The particulars of the method and procedure
are detailed in the following chapter.
CHAPTER 4
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This study uses a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods (or mixed-methods) to
examine the research question and hypotheses. The study began with in-depth interviews
with managers and employees to better understand the current climate of communication in
the organizations. Interviews provide a basis for understanding the organization, the
language they use, as well as to better understand the issues examined in the employee
surveys. Employee surveys provide a breadth of understanding not available through
interviews. The mixed-methods approach, while more time-consuming, provides a richer
interpretation of the phenomena being studied due to the complementarity of the qualitative
and quantitative approaches. Each approach is described in the sections below, beginning
with the qualitative component of the research.
Qualitative Research
Denzin and Lincoln (2000) describe qualitative research as “a situated activity that
locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretative, material practices that
make the world visible” (p. 3). Denzin and Lincoln stress the value placed on ascertaining
how participants make meaning. This approach is important in order to understand the
nuances of communication, trust and commitment that are not easily
38
discovered through quantitative analysis. Geertz (1973) described the strength of qualitative
research as getting at “thick description” (p. 6), or better understanding the context of the
issue(s). In addition, qualitative research is useful for theory building prior to theory testing
with surveys (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003).
Three research questions form the basis of this qualitative research.
RQ1: How do organizations communicate with employees to create trusting
relationships with employees?
RQ2: How do organizations communicate with employees to create a sense of
commitment with employees?
RQ3: How do organizations communicate with employees to create a positive
reputation with employees and customers?
This study features in-depth interviews with executives and employees from several
organizations about their perceptions of the importance of the link between internal and
external communication, namely how effective internal communication builds trust and
commitment that employees then share through their relationships with external customers.
I conducted six executive interviews and four employee interviews. All interviewees
consented to participate. While executive interviews sought to understand how executives
believe employees view internal communication, the employee interviews provide a better
understanding of how employees perceive internal communication.
Participants
The following executives participated in this study: the Vice President and
Communications Manager for a large financial services institution, the Internal Corporate
Communications manager of a software firm, a District Manager of a global retail firm, and a
39
Vice President of Corporate Communications for an energy firm, the Employee
Communications manager for a utility firm, and the corporate secretary for a manufacturing
firm. These organizations all appear to approach employee communication in a proactive,
positive manner based on initial discussions and interest by these organizations, as well as by
the fact that they are often referred to in the business press as examples of firms with positive
reputations, as evidenced by the fact that two of the firms are ranked in Fortune’s “Most
Admired” ranking for 2006.
Data Collection and Recruitment
Interview data was collected both in-person and via phone. Phone interviews are less
expensive and more cost-effective, yet they fail to provide the nuances and subtleties of body
language that are most effective in in-person interviews (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003). Both
options were offered to participants because they are geographically wide-spread and their
schedules made it difficult for us to meet in person. Three of the six executive interviews
were conducted via phone due to travel distance, one was conducted via email, and the
remaining two interviews were conducted in person. Interviews were recorded and
transcribed for analysis.
All executive participants were recruited via email. Interviewees will receive a
personal email note of invitation to participate (Form G). Survey participants received an
invitation to participate via their intranets or through email (Forms H and I). The invitation
email introduced myself and my research and invited them to voluntarily participate in an
interview about communication in their organization. It asked for their reply to participate to
set up a convenient time and place to meet and discuss communication in their organization.
Interviewees were contacted once for an invitation, once to set up a mutually convenient time
40
to talk, and once to be thanked for their participation. All of these contacts were made via
email.
The interviewees are from Charlotte, North Carolina; Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina; Durham, North Carolina; Butner, North Carolina; Raleigh, North Carolina; and
Atlanta, Georgia. There were no inducements for interview participation.
All employee interviews were recruited in person and conducted at their place of
employment.
Consent
Consent was obtained from interviewees prior to conducting the interviews. See
Consent Form A.
Qualitative method
In order to better understand how employees feel about organizational
communication, in-depth interviews were conducted with six managers from different
organizations and four employees from one retail organization. While Denzin and Lincoln
(2000) have said that “we live in an interview society” (p. 633), the in-depth interview was
chosen as the method to use that would best get to the viewpoint of the participants. The
interviews were conducted one-on-one, audio-taped, and transcribed for analysis. Each
interview lasted no more than one hour. Each person who agreed to participate was invited
to talk at a time and place convenient to both them and myself. The interviews were
conducted in either their office, on the phone, or another setting that was mutually agreed
upon by the interviewee and the interviewer.
After signing the consent form, the semi-structured interview questions (Fontana &
Frey, 2000) ask (see Appendix B) about their employment at their organizations and how
41
their organizations communicate with employees on a daily basis. With the semi-structured
interview, primary questions were the same for each participant, and the interviewer took
opportunities as they presented themselves to ask each interviewee to expand on specific
answers they gave that were unique to their understanding and interpretation of their job
using probes or prompts. This unstructured interviewing style “attempts to understand the
complex behavior of members of society without imposing any a priori categorization that
may limit the field of inquiry” (p. 653). Hence, allowing participants to define their use of
terms and explain their processes and meanings is one of the strengths of using a qualitative
research method.
Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the respondents. All interviewees are
be volunteers and were thanked with a personal, hand-written note. I approached our time
together as one who wants to learn, and not one who has all of the answers. Participants
were offered results from the study, if interested.
Qualitative Data analysis
Interview data from the two groups of interviewees (executives and lower-level
employees) were analyzed separately because they are drawn from two separate groups of
employees who are at different levels of the organization. The qualitative data were analyzed
using an analytic induction technique. That is, the qualitative data were analyzed from the
perspective of relationship management theory, as opposed to grounded theory, in which the
research begins with no specific theory in mind.
As qualitative researcher Grant McCracken (1988) suggests, the objective of
qualitative analysis is to determine the categories and relationships that exist in the
interviewee data, based upon an understanding of the theory that is being tested as well as
42
based on the interviewer’s own self-awareness. The investigator must be prepared to
understand the data in light of the theory being tested, look for negative cases, as well as be
open to new interpretations of the data (McCracken, 1988). This new perspective, including
an analysis of negative cases, helps to add to theory.
Cluster Analysis
The interview data were coded using cluster analysis (Foss, 2004). Cluster analysis is
a subset of rhetorical analysis. Foss describes rhetorical analysis, as an “attempt to create
identification by naming or defining situation for audiences. It may provide a vocabulary of
thoughts, actions, emotions, and attitudes for codifying and thus interpreting a situation” (p.
70). Foss describes the benefit of rhetorical analysis is that we can decode or make sense of
the terms that others use to describe their reality.
In this cluster analysis, first, the interviews were analyzed for key terms used by the
participants, which are known in qualitative research as emic terms of phrases. Key terms
were selected based on both frequency and intensity, which represent how strongly the
interviewee feels about the particular subject. Second, the interviews were mapped for other
terms clustered around the key terms, such as those that are found nearby a key term or that
may connect to a key term. These terms might be found near each other because they explain
each other, further define each other, or because they explain a cause-and-effect relationship.
For instance, employees might use talking and listening in close proximity to explain that
they feel more like talking when they feel their boss is listening. Finally, the analysis
examined patterns of association or linkages to identify which clusters are most interesting or
of greatest importance for the participants. Again, a pattern of intensity or frequency might
help explain which explanation has the most value for analyzing the interview data. Finally,
43
once this cluster analysis was finished, a visual representation of the data was laid out in
order to “see” the patterns of association and linkages. Northcutt and McCoy (2004) call this
a system influence diagram, or mindmap, which is a “visual representation of an entire
system of influences and outcomes” (p. 48). They describe this as a method for “seeing”
how the links in system work together and might be changed if one component is modified.
Mindmaps.
This study will present mindmaps for each set of interviews—one for the employee
interviews and one for the executive interviews. In order to understand the relationship
between these two sets of employees, a collective map will be drawn to demonstrate the
points of similarity and dissimilarity between the interviewees.
Quantitative Research
Quantitative analysis is used to test theory. It has the strengths of asking a consistent
set of questions of each respondent, in order to test the differences across respondents.
Surveys are effective for understanding the attitudes, behaviors and beliefs of respondents,
and are able to be distributed without any geographic constraints. In addition, surveys permit
the collection of mass amounts of data at relatively low costs. Surveys do have some
weaknesses, however, including no flexibility in the questions asked, and the difficulties in
locating appropriate samples (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003).
An electronic survey of employees will examine the role that internal communication
plays in employee relations and how it correlates with trust, commitment, and reputation.
Surveys across organizations will provide a much richer understanding of how different
organizations, though with a similar outlook, might approach communication in different
ways.
44
This study utilized online surveys and there are varying opinions as to the strengths
and weaknesses between using paper or online surveys. An anonymous author at the
University of Texas (2006) identified the following strengths and weaknesses of online
surveys. The strengths include reduced material costs, the respondent may feel less inhibited
if not responding in a group, and the time required for data entry and analysis is usually
reduced, producing faster results. The strengths of using an online survey are balanced by
their weaknesses which include a lower response rate, anonymity is somewhat harder to
guarantee, some technical ability is required to format the survey and related database,
respondents may need additional instruction or orientation before they are able to complete
the survey, technology failures are possible, and responses may be more difficult to modify.
Statistical method.
The survey was sent to 300 employees. The survey data was analyzed using SPSS
software that analyzes statistical data. In addition to assessing frequencies and means,
correlation and regression analyses were used to determine what relationships exist between
the variables being studied. Correlation analysis ensures that the concepts being studied are
distinct from one another. Regression analysis demonstrates how a change in one variable
affects the others.
Participants.
The participants include employees from one retail firm and executives from all six
firms whose executives are participating in the interviews, a software firm, an energy firm, a
retail firm, a utility firm, a manufacturing firm, and a large financial services firm. While
employees were not coerced into participating, they were self-selecting whether or not to
45
participate, based on things such as their mood or their time availability, which may limit the
generalizability of these findings (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003).
Consent.
Implied consent was obtained from the survey participants as they begin the survey
process. When they click on the link for the survey the first thing they saw is a description of
the study and the implied consent paragraph outlining their rights as participants. They were
informed that by continuing to participate in the survey, they were indicating their consent.
They were also informed that the survey was voluntary and that they could quit at any time.
Finally, they were informed that their comments will be confidential and analyzed in
aggregate so that no one may see their individual responses. See Consent Form C.
Recruitment.
Survey participants received an invitation via their intranets or through email to
voluntarily participate in an online survey (Forms H and I). The invitation explained the
purpose of the study and how their viewpoints will help further an understanding of the
importance of employee communications in reputation management. Additionally, the
potential pool of participants were alerted of their rights to participate or not, and the option
to discontinue their participation or skip questions if they so desire. After they agreed to
participate by replying to the email invitation, they were then be contacted via email once
more with instructions on how to complete the on-line survey, which they completed from
their own offices or from home. There were no inducements for the employees to participate
in the survey.
46
Data Collection.
Survey data was collected using Zoomerang’s (www.zoomerang.com) electronic
survey program which is used extensively by individuals and organizations to collect data on
a variety of topics. This researcher and the respondents found Zoomerang easy to use. Data
will be kept confidential because access to it will require password protection both to access
Zoomerang as well as to access my personal laptop. Analysis will be done in aggregate, and
no identifiers will be included in data collection that could expose a subject’s identity.
Data Analysis.
Statistics provides a way of analyzing opinions at one point in time and provides a
method for organizing and understanding information more easily (Salkind, 2004). Survey
data is helpful because it provides a “general ‘feel’ for what the data show” (Hansen et al.,
1998, p. 300). While statistical analysis is useful for providing a method for “discovering
relationships and differences” (p. 312), the researcher is still responsible for the final analysis
of the data. Data analysis includes descriptive statistics, along with correlation and
regression analyses to interpret the survey data.
The survey features questions previously validated by other authors which are
modified and expanded in this study. To answer the first hypothesis, “Employees are more
likely to receive rich communication from their managers when their firms convey new
product information” questions from Daft, Lengel, and Trevino (1987); and Trevino,
Webster, and Stein (2000) were modified and adapted. Those questions are:
47
When your company communicates to you about new products,
services, or initiatives…
1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree
1. My manager uses face-to-face communication. Media
Richness 1
2. My manager uses the telephone to communicate. MR2
3. My manager uses email to communicate. MR3
In general, how much do you agree or disagree with these
statements:
4. My manager understands customer’s needs well. Relational
Perform/
Org-Public
5. My manager understands employee’s needs well. Rel Perf/
Org-Pub
6. My manager cooperates with us to help do the job well. RP2
7. My manager provides valuable feedback. RP3
8. My manager makes recommendations for continuous improvement on an
ongoing basis.
RP4
To what extent would you characterize face-to-face communication
as having the ability to:
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
9. Give and receive timely feedback
10. Provide non-verbal feedback (facial gestures, posture, etc.)
To what extent would you characterize written communication
(such as memos or letters) as having the ability to:
11. Give and receive timely feedback
12. Provide non-verbal feedback
To what extent would you characterize electronic communication
(such as email or intranets) as having the ability to:
13. Give and receive timely feedback
14. Provide non-verbal feedback
To examine hypothesis 2a and 2b, “H2a: Employees’ perceptions of control
mutuality will be positively related to their sense of a communal relationship. H2b:
Employees’ perceptions of control mutuality will be negatively related to their sense of an
exchange relationship”, and H2c: “Employees’ perceptions of control mutuality will be
negatively related to their sense of an exchange relationship”, the Likert-scale questions of
control mutuality, communal, and exchange relationships by Grunig and Hon (1999) were
48
used. These questions pertain to issues of how both the organization and the employee
public view each other, as well as questions about the nature of their relationship.
Control Mutuality Grunig &
Hon
(1999)
To what extent to you agree with these statements?
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
15. This company and people like me are attentive to what each other say.
16. This company believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate.
17. In dealing with people like me, this company has a tendency to throw its
weight around.
Reversed
18. This company really listens to what people like me have to say.
19. The management of this company gives people like me enough say in the
decision-making process.
20. When I have an opportunity to interact with the management of this
company, I feel that I have some sense of control over the situation.
21. This company won’t cooperate with people like me. Reversed
22. I believe people like me have influence on the decision-makers of this
company.
Communal Relationships Grunig &
Hon
(1999)
23. This company does not especially enjoy giving others aid. Reversed
24. This company is very concerned about the welfare of people like me.
25. I feel that this company takes advantage of people who are vulnerable. Reversed
26. I think that this company succeeds by stepping on other people. Reversed.
27. This company helps people like me without expecting anything in return.
28. I don’t consider this to be a particularly helpful company for me. Reversed
29. I feel that this company tries to get the upper hand. Reversed
Exchange Relationships Grunig &
Hon
(1999)
30. Whenever this company gives or offers something to people like me, it
generally expects something in return.
31. Even though people like me have had a relationship with this company
for a long time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us
a favor.
32. This company will compromise with people like me when it knows that
it will gain something.
49
33. This company takes care of people who are likely to reward the
organization.
Questions modified and expanded from Grunig and Hon (1999) were correlated with
questions from Mishra (1996) and Mayer and Gavin (2006) to examine H3: “A higher use of
internal communication with employee publics will be positively related to employee trust in
the organization.”
PR/Company Trust Grunig &
Hon
(1999)
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
34. This company treats people like me fairly and justly. Integrity
35. Whenever this company makes an important decision, I know it will be
concerned about people like me.
Integrity;
faith
36. This company can be relied on to keep its promises Depend
ability
37. I feel very confident about this company’s expertise. Compe
tence
38. This company has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. Compe
tence
39. Sound principles seem to guide this company’s behavior. Integrity
40. This company does not mislead people like me. Integrity
41. I am very willing to let this company make decisions for people like me. Depend
ability
42. I think it is important to watch this company closely so that it does not
take advantage of people like me.
Depend
ability;
reversed
43. This company is known to be successful at the things it tries to do. Compe
tence
Managerial Trust Mishra
(1996)
44. My manager is straightforward with me
45. My manager is competent and knowledgeable
46. My manager does not try to get out of his/her commitments
50
47. My manager does not take advantage of me
48. My manager communicates honestly with me
49. My manager can contribute to my company’s success
50. My manager behaves consistently
51. My manager does not exploit me
52. My manager does not mislead me in his/her communications
53. My manager can help my company survive during the next decade
54. My manager is reliable
55. My manager cares about my best interests
56. My manager does not withhold important information from me
57. My manager is concerned for my welfare
58. My manager can be counted on
59. My manager can help solve important problems faced by my company
60. My manager can be trusted
Company Trust Mayer &
Gavin
2006
61. If I had my way, I wouldn't let my company have any influence over
issues that are important to me.
62. I would be willing to let my company have complete control over my
future in this company.
63. I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on my company.
64. I would be comfortable giving my company a task or problem which was
critical to me, even if I could not monitor his/her (its) actions.
65. If someone questioned my company's motives, I would give my
company the benefit of the doubt.
51
Hypotheses H4: “Internal communication with employee publics enhances employee
commitment to the organization” were examined by correlating questions from Meyer and
Allen (1997).
Affective Commitment Meyer &
Allen 1997
66. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this company
67. I enjoy discussing my company with people outside it
68. I really feel as if this company’s problems are my own
69. I think I could easily become as attached to another
company as I am to this one
Reversed
70. I do not feel like “part of the family” at this company Reversed
71. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this company Reversed
72. This company has a great deal of personal meaning for me
73. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this company
Continuance Commitment Meyer &
Allen 1997
74. It would be very hard for me to leave this company right now, even if I
wanted to
75. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted
to leave my company now
76. It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave this company in the near future Reversed
77. Right now, staying with this company is a matter of necessity as much
as desire
78. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this company
79. If I leave this company now, I would have few alternatives.
80. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having
another one lined up
81. One of the major reasons I continue to work for my company is that
another company may not match the overall benefits I have here
52
Hypothesis five: “Internal communication with employee publics results in a stronger
firm reputation among internal publics” was tested correlating Fortune’s Most-Admired
rankings as well as asking:
Describe your agreement with this statement:
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
82. My company has an outstanding reputation.
Mishra, 2006
The final hypothesis, H6 will examine the trust and commitment measures to
determine whether “Trust will be positively related to commitment.”
In addition, in order to better understand communication preferences and to
understand if there are differences between positive and negative news delivery, respondents
were asked,
83. If you are getting bad news from your manager, do you
prefer
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
84. If you are getting good news from your manager, do
you prefer
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
85. If you are giving bad news to your employees, do you
prefer using
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
86. If you are giving good news to your employees, do you
prefer using
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
Finally demographic information was requested of each respondent, such as:
53
87. What is your age?
88. What is your gender?
89. What is your ethnicity?
90. What is your level of education?
91. What company and/or industry do you work for?
92. How would you describe your job in this organization?
93. How many people are under your direct supervision?
94. How long have you worked at this company?
95. How much longer do you expect to work at this
company?
Limitations
This study has several limitations, including the measures available and access to
survey data.
First of all, this study was limited by the measures already available to study public
relations relationships, trust, and communication. To enhance validity, pre-existing measures
were used for all of the survey constructs. However, additional aspects or dimensions of
each construct may be important to fully understand commitment and reputation. In the
future, new item measures should be developed to better understand how managers talk to
employees and vice-versa as well as how those behaviors lead to trust, commitment, and firm
reputation.
Second, this study was limited by the use of both convenience and snowball
sampling. Convenience sampling was used due to the hesitation by many firms to participate
in this type of survey. The questions appeared to be rather sensitive in nature, and some of
54
the firms originally scheduled to participate in the survey ultimately declined to participate.
In order to get sufficient survey data, this author was able to secure cooperation from
executive students and alums from the University of North Carolina and Wake Forest
University as well as one manufacturing firm led by a Wake Forest University alum.
Results were similar across both sets of survey data, however, increasing the
robustness of results. This type of sampling prevents cross-analysis of firm-specific
reputation data (such as J. D. Power) with the survey data, as there are too many firms
involved in completing the survey to be able to match reputation data with survey data. In
the future, it would be beneficial to identify one large company to be able to correlate
specific survey data with specific reputation data from ACSI or J. D. Power.
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
This chapter reports both the qualitative findings from the in-depth interviews of
employees and executives and quantitative results from a survey of employees. This mixed-
methods approach was critical to understanding the nuances of the survey findings through
the qualitative stories. The interview data were analyzed using cluster analysis (Foss, 2004)
as defined in the methods section. The survey data were analyzed using SPSS statistical
software. The employee interviews were conducted first to find out how employees feel
about their companies internal communication efforts. Then, the executive interviews were
conducted to assess the level of agreement between employees and executives. Finally, the
responses from both sets of interviews were used to help select survey questions that were
administered to employees. The interview responses helped provide direction for developing
survey questions as well background for understanding the survey results. Appendix B
sheds light on the process as it unfolded.
It was hypothesized that richer (face-to-face) communication flowing two-ways
between both employees and management would enhance feelings of trust between
management and employees, ultimately resulting in stronger commitment to each other and
to the organization. As employees have been demonstrated to have more credibility with
other stakeholders than corporate communications efforts (Keller and Berry, 2003), their
opinions will influence external stakeholders to have a more positive opinion about the
56
reputation of the firm. That is, if employees are happy to be employed by the organization,
they in turn, share their positive feelings with customers and other stakeholders.
The analysis begins with the results of the employee interviews, followed by the
results of the executive interviews. Lastly, the results of the employee survey is reported.
Qualitative Results
Employee Interviews
The employee interviews were conducted in-person, recorded, transcribed, and
analyzed prior to the executive interviews and employee surveys, to better understand how
employees think about communication within their company. The employee interviews also
provided insights into what type of survey questions to use, since employees would be
completing the surveys. In addition, the employee interviews provided a platform to create
the executive questions. It became clear during the interviews and analysis what was
important to employees, and the intent of the executive interviews was to ascertain whether
or not there was a link between employee needs and company efforts.
The interview data were coded using cluster analysis (Foss, 2004). First, the
interviews were analyzed for key terms based on frequency or intensity. Second, the
interviews were mapped for other terms clustered around the key terms, such as those that are
found nearby a key term or that may connect to a key term. Finally, the analysis examined
patterns of association or linkages to identify which clusters are most interesting or of
greatest importance. To visualize the clusters, a mindmap (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004) of the
analysis was developed.
All four interviewees were young women, under the age of 30. Alex, Deserai,
Jessica, and Sharon had all worked in more than one location for a retail operation, yet at the
57
time of the interviews, were all working at the same store. Last names are not given to
preserve their confidentiality. Three are Caucasian and one is Black. Alex was from
Lebanon and so she brought an international outlook to her job. In addition, she was a shift
supervisor, which meant that she had some supervisory responsibilities while also having
duties similar to her employee. All four had worked for this retail operation for less than five
years, but had worked at multiple stores within this same chain, providing them with a
variety of viewpoints. In this type of retail firm, employees work closely together, often as a
team, to complete a customer transaction.
Using cluster analysis, several themes emerged analyzing the text of each employee
interview: talking with their manager, open-minded managers, getting feedback, the people,
and their impact on the customer. Clusters of words that described both shared and
individual world views surrounded those themes. Overall, employees focused on the
interpersonal aspect of their relationships to explain how communication works in their firm.
The themes that emerged, however, are in their own words.
Talking with their manager
All four employees mentioned the importance of being able to “talk” to their
manager. They felt that this openness allowed them to not only become better
employees, but enabled them to enjoy their job more. In one conversation, Jessica
mentioned that people often ask her what it is like working for an impersonal Fortune
500 company. She noted that despite working for a Fortune 500 retail firm, she still
feels the benefit of working for a smaller organization. Specifically, it provides an
opportunity for her to interact with her manager during her shifts.
58
A lot of people say if you’re working for a really big company you’re just a
number and people aren’t thinking of what you want and they aren’t listening.
But I haven’t found that at all. Because each store – you’re never going to
work with more than about 15 to 20 people I guess. Like at this store I think
we only have like 12 people working. You’re going to know everyone and if
you have something to talk about with your manager you’re most likely going
to work a shift with them and you can just discuss it with them right away and
every manager I’ve had has been helpful.
Sharon acknowledged that this intimate store structure did not always ensure
clear communication, however, between managers and employees.
Sometimes it trickles down through the shift supervisors like the managers
will speak to the shift supervisors and it’s up to the shifts to kind of educate
everybody else on that. Communication isn’t always that clear though.
Sometimes people get overlooked or missed. It’s not clear that you were
supposed to tell anybody else that. Communication can be a difficult problem.
When asked about the ways they communicate at work, either in person or via email,
the four employees at this retail firm all said that face-to-face communication was the way
they enjoyed talking to their manager and to each other. Jessica described her
communication with her manager as face-to-face, rather than by another communication
means, such as email. “It’s always face to face. If they had a problem with what an
employee is doing they’d definitely – like when you’re here they’d ask you to come in a little
bit early.”
All four employees explained that the managers that they had worked for had sought
them out and asked questions about how they felt their work was going. Deserei said that she
appreciated this proactive approach by her manager.
This store is so small – no emails. Which is really cool because I like – the
thing about (my company) too is it’s very easy – most of the managers are
very approachable. They actually encourage that. Like they have a day where
they set up all admin stuff and they actually encourage – they have one on
one’s with partners. Not necessarily a shift but maybe a [colleague] and you
59
can sit down and they’ll ask how you’re doing, what’s going on. That’s cool.
Recently Alex (her shift supervisor) and I had a one-on-one. She was like
“What’s going on? How do you feel?” Then she was helping me with my
PDP- kind of a thing – an outline they set up things to work towards to be an
assistant. She was like “oh let’s work on that. What do you feel you need to be
doing?”
As a shift supervisor, Alex has some supervisory duties in addition to doing the same
job duties as her employees. She communicates with her employees mostly face-to-face
through on-the-job training. She trains them and then watches them while they work to
provide feedback on what works or what does not work. She finds that the other employees
provide feedback to each other, too, so that they can all work together as a team more
effectively. She said that this is because each person’s work affects the other’s work.
Although the other three employees had positive things to say about their
relationships with their managers, Sharon was the one employee who described how
miscommunication had affected her company experience.
The same problems occur here as well like sometimes there’s
miscommunication and sometimes I think we all feel as though our opinions
and our personal interests, requests aren’t really appreciated and sometimes
you feel your work is not appreciated. But it goes both ways as well. I’m sure
managers need some encouragement once in a while.
Overall, employees said they appreciate the opportunity to talk face-to-face with their
manager. These employees articulated, however, that the degree of openness in that face-to-
face discussion depended on the willingness of their manager to engage with them.
Open-minded Managers
They all agreed that it was obvious which managers were truly “open” to a give-and-
take discussion and which mangers were not able to handle openness as well. Deserei
described the managers she has worked for as open-minded and willing to listen.
60
Whenever I have an issue, I just go to talk to them and the door is always
open. I never feel like there’s a time when I can’t. And that’s with every
manager that I’ve worked with – they’re always open-minded. That’s one
thing I would say that (my company) looks for. It’s just odd that every
manager – not odd but it’s nice that every manager that I’ve worked for I’m
able to – they’re so open-minded and willing to listen so I guess that would be
one of the things that they look for in talking. A lot of the questions they ask
are situational questions as far as manager – when you move up as manager so
I guess they see how you react. You respond to different situations. So I guess
that’s how they evaluate who they move up and who they don’t. I guess that
would be one of them is to be open minded because a lot of the managers are
pretty open minded and pretty approachable.
As a result of the communication in a store, employees said that they can figure out
quickly which managers they could trust based on how open they are in their communication,
which they feel makes them more committed to those managers. Sharon described one
manager who changed from closed-minded to open-minded in her managerial approach,
which led her to respect her manager more:
“She (the manager) really learned to listen to us and listen to what we needed
and to take that serious. It made the store better and it made us respect her
and made us get along better. It made us come to her and open up more. It
made her open up to us and become more friendly and respectful. When you
see your manager working for you and working to make your job better then
you’re going to work for them as well.”
Jessica also commented on differences between managers in how they provide
direction.
I have noticed differences when people tell me what to do. Like some
managers are better at being diplomatic like you know what, you didn’t make
that quite right. “Can I show you how to steam this pitcher of milk better?”
Then other managers aren’t good at all.
Deserai believes that good communication skills are an important managerial skill
and said she knows that her own good communication skills will help her get promoted to the
61
next level of supervision, “As long as you’re interested and you have the drive and they see
you work well…it’s just that you’re able to communicate” she said.
As a shift supervisor, Alex described her rise through the managerial ranks and her
training, which included a class in performance communication. She described her
communication style as open and honest. All four employees said that they were able to
quickly discern which managers were open-minded about communicating with employees.
The third theme that emerged from the analysis is the participants’ beliefs in the value of
asking for and receiving feedback from their managers.
Getting feedback
These four employees felt that any type communication from their manager was more
effective if it included regular feedback. Both Jessica and Sharon indicated that they
appreciated getting feedback from their bosses about how they were doing. Sharon also
noted that some managers are better than others in listening and providing feedback. “So I
think depending on what you say to the manager, management is receptive and is not
receptive.” Alex expressed gratitude to her district manager for teaching her how to give
feedback in a constructive way to her employees.
Deserai, an employee who was scheduled by her manager to be promoted to the next
level of supervision, believes that positive feedback is necessary to let employees know that
they are important to the company, regardless of how long they have been with the company.
She thinks that employees recognized, however, that communication suffered when the store
was either too busy or understaffed. Deserai worried that “management has gotten away
from giving encouragement and recognition for those old [colleagues] as well as new,”
62
because the managers were being held accountable for so many things in the store that they
became distracted from providing that necessary feedback.
A lot of the old [colleagues] feel as though they might not get the positive
feedback because the focus is on the new partners right now so we’ve got a lot
of older [colleagues] that do an awesome job every day but because they do it
every day it’s kind of expected that - “We know you do a good job – you’re
fine.” But you know sometimes they need that encouragement – not so much
feedback but they need that encouragement.
These four participants also suggested that regional differences may also play a role
in the amount and type of feedback that they received. Alex said that her own personal
communication style is more direct than most southerners, which she attributed to her
Lebanese heritage. She believes it is preferable to be honest about an employee’s strengths
and weaknesses and not to sugar-coat things so that they can also feel comfortable being
honest back to her. She thinks this is better for everyone. In addition, the other interviewees
said they noticed a difference between the southern store where they currently work and the
northern or north-eastern stores they’ve worked in. They also said that the southern store
managers are less direct in how they relate to employees so employees are more likely to be
surprised when they get constructive feedback. For instance, they noted that southern store
managers may not come out and tell you exactly what it is you are doing wrong, but will only
hint that you need to work harder. However, they feel that northern store managers are more
forthright in the way they deliver feedback and thus less likely to elicit surprise when
providing feedback.
Overall, the employees all said that they appreciated the opportunity to get feedback
from their manager on their job performance. They believe that this feedback suffers,
63
however, when a store is under stress, such as turnover. The next theme mentioned in the
employee interviews is about what they agree they enjoy most about their job: the people.
The people
Jessica, one of the youngest employees noted that, “my favorite part of working here
is the people-- the [colleagues]. I really like how I can talk to everyone and we’re all doing
the same job.” Sharon agreed,
I guess the people I work with. You get to know a lot of different people in
different areas. We have new people – there’s a guy that’s 47 years old and
he’s a really interesting guy. He’s had a lot of really cool experiences. At my
old store, there was a man who had a daughter my age and we were really
good friends. He’s a great guy – he was so fun. They also believe that face-to-
face communication among their peers was critical for achieving success with
the customer but also in making their workplace a pleasant one. Employees
believe that face-to-face communication with each other was critical to
trusting each other, completing their jobs, and influencing their customer’s
experiences.
Deserai also described her favorite part of working at her company as the people.
I love the [employees]. They’re awesome. It’s like (my company) hires really
awesome people. I guess because a lot of – in the mission statement they say
promote diversity or whatever so you’re not necessarily – there’s not a certain
type that they look for in the interview. If you have personality – actually
what it is, is it’s personality. When they interview you they want to see that
you have some personality. With that you get so many different walks of life
– like people. So it’s amazing.
They also feel that smooth communication between the employees served to enhance
their own experience as well as their customers’ experience. Deserai noted, “The way we
interact with each other, the vibe is different when you have those [colleagues] that are happy
when they come to work and they love what they’re doing.” Jessica also noted how she
enjoyed both the co-workers and customers and how it brought her out of her shell. “Oh yes,
64
I love the customers, I love my coworkers, it’s just how it’s made me be more out-going--like
I was a lot more shy when I first started working here at the job.”
Overall, the employees agreed that the favorite part of their job is the people
they interact with—both their co-workers and their customers, and they believe that
good communication is important for the work environment and the customer
environment. The final theme the employees described was the way their actions
affect their customers.
Customer impact
These employees believe their own communication style or ability would influence
their relationships with their customers. Deserai also described a connection between the
way she worked with her co-workers and how it affected their customers.
We all come from different places and we all share different experiences with
each other. So I think people see that and that they think it is an easy job. It
looks like so much fun so it must be easy. They seem to be laughing and
joking but they don’t realize we still have to be making things, cleaning up,
we have to be getting things prepared for the next person that comes in. …
but we still work and we’re back there working our butts off just to give you
100% every time you come in. Like just to make sure the store looks good
when you come in, just to make sure we have things out there when you come
in.
Alex also described the connection between creating a positive environment for both
employees and customers. She related a story about a customer she and her co-workers
named Grumpy Jim and how the staff decided that they would work harder to make Jim’s
day better each time he came into her store. “Now, Jim is not so grumpy anymore and he is
one of our favorite customers.”
Sharon noted how the positive relationships with co-workers and customers
made her job meaningful.
65
That’s the best part, the different people and how great they are. You’d never
know it. I mean like sure you know they’re nice people – people that help you
when you’re getting your coffee but when you work with them every day and
see them and develop relationships, they’re the best part.
In addition, Deserai described a connection between employee feedback and
customer satisfaction, echoing management’s claim that her retail store is a “third place”
after work and home where people choose to gather.
We give a good drink but a lot of times just from talking to customers is they
enjoy coming in and talking to the partners. They enjoy how they feel – like
this is the third place. If we’re not giving them (the employees)
encouragement behind the scenes, they don’t necessarily want to chat with the
customer.
Both Jessica and Sharon believe that this customer interaction was one of the positive
features of their job. Jessica said that she returns to (her company) each semester during
college because of the customers. “I’ve known a lot of the customers since I started here a
long time ago and they remember me. It’s just really nice to be able to talk to customers like
that. That’s why I like to come back.” Sharon agreed and said that her customer relationships
remained strong from store-to-store.
I got to know a lot of people through the store. I got to be in touch with my
community better, the customers as well – you get to be friends and hang out.
I have really good friends I’m still in touch with from my old store and I’m
sure I will from this store too.
They said they understood that their work behavior directly influenced how
customers perceived them and their company. As a result, they felt they were aware that they
were highly visible in what they said and did. Jessica described her feelings this way,
That’s the best part whether it’s interacting with my coworkers or interacting
with the customers. That’s definitely the best thing. Even if I’m in a bad
mood one day – just talking to people and forcing myself puts me in a good
66
mood because I have to. I’m not allowed to be rude to the customers even if
I’m not having a good day. It forces me even in my day-to-day life with other
activities to just remember that, “would I treat a customer that way?” No.
Alex talked about the “just say yes” campaign that (her company) implemented last
year. It was designed to make every customer experience positive, even if it meant giving a
customer a free beverage or replacing one that they thought was not up to the regular
standards.
There is no reason to say no to a customer, but there is also no reason a
grumpy customer should ruin my day. I don’t want a grumpy customer to
intrude on my interaction with the next customer, so I work hard to make sure
each customer is happy no matter what.
Overall, the employees believed that their actions on their jobs affected their
customers. They also believed that those interactions should be positive.
Summary
Overall, five themes emerged from the cluster analysis 1) talking with managers, 2)
open-minded managers, 3) getting feedback, 4) the people, and 5) customer impact. First,
these four employees described their ideal communication as face-to-face with their manager.
It was this “talking” that helped them feel connected to their manager and to their company.
This “talking” was what employees experienced with their boss, as managers at this firm
have a mandate to schedule times to talk to each employee. There were differences,
however, across managers and how they conducted these “talking” sessions. As a result, the
second theme emerged from the “talking,” as employees quickly figured out which manager
was willing to engage in dialogue with them versus the managers who enjoyed hearing
themselves talk. The third theme emerged from the employees desire to get something more
out of their “talking” sessions with their manager. These employees sought out and
67
appreciated getting constructive feedback from their manager, as it helped them feel like they
were connected to their company’s mission and making positive progress towards achieving
goals for the company and themselves. They noticed differences, however, between different
managers’ communication and feedback styles, saying that some managers were more open-
minded than others. Employees also articulated the reason they loved their job—the people
they worked with and served—colleagues and customers. This interaction with people made
their jobs feel worthwhile. Finally, the employees were very aware that a positive
communication experience could enhance not only their own work experience, but their
customers’ experiences as well. Employees understood that their job satisfaction affected
customer satisfaction.
One method for visualizing the relationships between the clusters in a qualitative
analysis is to put them in a figure. The process of analyzing clusters and relating them to the
relationship management literature are found in Appendices B and C. This illustrates some
of the process of asking myself questions to create the mindmap. Figure B is a mindmap
(Northcutt & McCoy, 2004) showing how the clusters from the employee interviews fit
together. It is clear that these employees feel that the crux of the experience lies with how
open-minded they find their managers to be. Hence, “open-minded managers” is placed at
the center of the diagram. They believe that this openness then affects the employee and
customer environments. First, it affects how well managers are able to communicate with
employees, as well as promote a sense of camaraderie among them. In addition, this open
communication fosters an atmosphere of constructive feedback in which employees want to
improve how well they do their jobs, but also to provide an enjoyable environment for the
customer. The arrows pointing outward indicate that those actions move out from the
68
manager to the employees and the customers. On the vertical plane, those communications
affect the relationship between a manager and the employee, yet on the horizontal axis, those
communications affect the relationships with both co-workers and customers.
Figure B. Mindmap of employee’s perceptions
of how communication affects personal relationships
Executive Interviews
The executive interviews were scheduled after the employee interviews were
completed. The employee interview responses were used to develop the executive questions
(see Appendix A). The employee questions centered on what made their job happy, but the
executive questions centered on the employee responses of the importance of communication
with their manager. The six executives interviewed for this study came from many different
industries and were recruited using a snowball approach. One of the executives is a graduate
of the master’s program at UNC-Chapel Hill, so she was interested in the topic and
volunteered to participate in an interview. Two of the other interviewees were recommended
by one of my committee members, and they then agreed to participate. One executive is the
Talking
Feed
back
The people Customer
impact
Open-
minded
mgrs
69
manager of the employees I interviewed and when I thanked her for allowing me to interview
them, agreed to participate in an interview herself. One executive filled in for another who
had originally agreed to participate in an interview. Finally, one executive leads a company
where I sit on its board of directors. One of the interviewees originally scheduled to
participate declined once it came time to actually conduct the interview, and two would not
to allow their interviews to be included in this study after the interviews were concluded due
to their inability in getting their interviews approved by their managers.
Not all executives were able to meet in person, and some preferred phone interviews
or the opportunity to answer the interview questions by email. For those answering by email,
follow-up or clarifying questions were sent to flesh out their responses. The text of the email
messages were used for analysis. Those interviews that were done either in-person or on the
phone were recorded, transcribed and later analyzed using cluster analysis (Foss, 2004), as
described earlier.
All executives were responsible for employee communications as a significant aspect
of their job responsibilities. These executives are:
1. Mary Beth, Vice President of Corporate Communications for a financial
services firm
2. Keith, Vice President of Corporate Communications for an energy company
3. Karen, Director of Internal Communications for a software firm
4. Sharon, Manager of Employee Communications for a utility firm
5. Katherine, Corporate Secretary with a medium-sized construction materials
firm
6. Gwen, District Manager with an international retail firm
70
Five of the executives are women and one of the executives is a man. Four of the
executives have specific responsibility for corporate or employee communications and two of
the executives have other roles which led them to affect communications in their firms.
The themes that emerged from the cluster analysis of the executive interviews were
employee engagement, managing reputation, dialogue with key audiences, separate from
marketing, owning all channels of communication, and face-to-face communication. Each
theme is presented in the sections that follow.
Employee Engagement
When each executive was asked how they defined their job or what their primary role
was, three of them, Mary Beth, Keith, and Sharon, all mentioned that they believe “employee
engagement” is one of their top priorities. They explained that employee engagement was a
fairly new way for their firms to envision their communications role, and they said this
perspective was being communicated down to them from their CEOs. All participants
believe that employees must feel they are contributing to the company’s goals to be
“engaged.” Engagement can be a process of ensuring employees understand the company
mission and “how they fit into it,” according to Keith. Similarly, Sharon said she believes it
is essential for employees “to be aware of and have access to information” in order to
become engaged employees. Mary Beth, the financial services executive, also mentioned
that dialogue with employees helps executives better understand employee needs, which can
positively affect their job performance. She believes that finding ways to build two-way
communication throughout the organization helped to build employee engagement.
If you look at our CEO’s top strategic business priorities, one of his top
priorities is employee engagement. And those have been the same for the last
several years. I think he would acknowledge and all of our top leaders would
acknowledge that if your employees are not engaged at work then you’re not
71
going to get the best product to your customers and you’re not going to
perform well. So every decision we make is through the lens of “how does
this affect our customers?” and “how does this affect our employees?”
Keith, the energy executive mentioned that when he came into his job one year ago, he
reorganized the entire corporate communications department and toyed with the idea of
making his title “director of employee engagement.”
The bigger, sort of the higher-level picture of the employee communications
role is to increase the engagement of employees into what the company’s
trying to do. Helping the employees understand what the company’s goals and
objectives are, how they fit into it, helping them buy into the strategy because
the research shows the more employees understand and feel like they’re
contributing or in line with the company strategy, the more productive they
are and the higher the morale and lower turnover.
Participants believe that effective communication is a critical element of the
employee engagement process, and they play a primary role in message development and
delivery. For example, Sharon, the manager of employee communications for a utility firm,
believes her department’s ability to properly supply their managers with helpful information
results in employees feeling fully engaged.
I feel strongly that an individual manager is responsible for ensuring his/her
employees are aware of and have access to information they need to be fully
engaged employees. The employees also have a role to actually take action to
access that information. Our role in Corporate Communication is to make the
information available and understandable.
Gwen, the district retail manager, believes that effective communication with
employees begins during the interview process. She used the term “personal learning” to
describe the capacity of employees to both acknowledge their mistakes from the past and yet
learn from them to become a better employee in the future.
You know, one of the things we were really trying to emphasize is that we
don’t expect anyone to be perfect – we always joke about – our assistant
72
manager basically asks every question like, “tell me how you messed this up,
what did you do? Tell me how you messed this up”…it’s kind of funny and
sometimes people externally have a really hard time answering those
questions because they’re under some false sense that they can’t be human.
Because if you’re able to learn from your mistakes – you know one of the
questions on the interview is tell me about a time that there was a really bad
customer service issue and you didn’t handle it right – what did you learn
from it and what would you do now? Because we have all been there. We’ve
all lost our cool and we’ve all said something stupid. It doesn’t mean we’re
bad people, but if we can’t even look back and see where we’ve made a
mistake then I don’t know how I’m going to be able to coach you to grow.
Another means of communication for employee engagement is through research.
Mary Beth mentioned that her firm conducts regular employee engagement research studies
to “listen” to employee concerns.
One of the things we ask employees about is “do you understand how the
work you do contributes to the company’s performance?” We often hear that
people need to understand how they’re contributing to the greater cause. If
they don’t understand that and they don’t have that line of sight it’s
demotivating. So that’s one of the things we look for and then we
communicate the results back out to the employees.
Karen, the Director of Internal Communications, also wants her communication
efforts to help build employee morale. “They (employees) become more knowledgeable
about the company with core communication. It even gives them a better sense of morale
about the company.” Her definition of “core” is information that is important about her
company. Her company sees the influence of managers at all levels contributing to employee
morale and so they have introduced a session on “how to communicate better” in their new
management development program.
Interestingly, Katherine, the corporate secretary in the family-owned construction
materials firm, believes that employee support will result from better communication.
Within the company managerial level employees play an important part in
relaying the corporate message in the way it was conveyed to them in order to
73
represent it best to people at all levels of the company. Without solid
communication skills gaining employee support on issues would be a major
obstacle.
Katherine was concerned that her father, the owner, was not more visible in the
monthly newsletter, such as writing his own column, which is their primary communication
vehicle with employees. “I think they want to hear from him—they want to know what he is
thinking and planning.” She believes her father seems to want the focus off of him, not
recognizing the fact that employees look to him as owner of the company, to lead the way
both in their personal interactions as well as through the newsletter.
All of these executives said they focused on finding ways to help employees
understand their place in the mission of the organization, as well as a means to reducing
turnover. Mary Beth indicated that employee engagement’s end goal was to reduce
employee turnover, and hence, increase employee commitment to her firm. As a result, her
firm’s managers are evaluated and compensated according to their ability to reduce turnover
among their employee ranks.
So they ask every leader to set a turnover goal and it would be part of what
their bonus would look like at the end of the year – whether they met their
goal or not. So they were supposed to look at their group and say ok, I
anticipate that this person is going to retire so I’m not going to count that and
there’s certain turnover you can’t control. But the turnover they could control
– they set a goal of wanting to retain 90% of their people or whatever their
goal was. And if they didn’t meet it, their bonus was negatively impacted.
Despite these advantages, some participants also see that employee engagement
presents them with challenges. Keith believes that this goal of employee engagement is such
an important part of his job and what his department does and yet he said he is having a
difficult time finding other qualified people to fill new positions for his department. He
74
believes this challenge is due to the job’s new focus on employee relations and away from
media relations that has traditionally existed at large companies.
Media is sexy and visible, but employee relations has impact. There’s all
kinds of varied defendable numbers to show that an engaged workforce is a
happier workforce and a more productive workforce so it’s worth the
investment. To that end, we end up getting into all those kinds of things from
employee meetings, web casts, you know working with senior managers on
presentations - they’re giving road show presentations to employees. Creating
feedback mechanisms for employees and again constantly evaluating our tools
to see how we can communicate to employees. Put in context the things that
the company’s doing.
Gwen also pointed out the challenge of knowing how much communication is most
effective. She feels that in her effort to contribute to “personal learning,” however, she
sometimes “overcommunicates” to her employees in an effort to empower them in building
personal relationships with their customers. She worried that sometimes she tells them more
than they might need to know and that her focus on the “big picture” might distract them
from their day-to-day operational duties.
Employee engagement or employee support was mentioned by all executives as an
important goal of their internal communication efforts. The second theme from the executive
interviews is their goal of managing their firm’s reputation.
Managing Reputation
The second priority many of the executives expressed was a focus on protecting and
managing the reputation of their company. Mary Beth said, “I feel like corporate
communications is helping a corporation manage its reputation with all of its stakeholders. I
think corporate communications is supposed to help manage and maintain the relationship
across all of those.” Keith also mentioned that managing and protecting his firm’s
reputation was a critical component of his job.
75
The corporate communication people are dealing with the issues and
reputation of the big company and making sure that you have brand
consistency and all that. I think that’s one of our most important roles.
Managing and protecting the reputation of the company; positioning the
company in the marketplace with customers, with key stakeholders, with
employees and to some extent with investors and shareholders, although that
kind of bleeds over into investor relations. What is our story and how do you
promote that story and also reputation protection? How do you protect a
company when bad things happen that threaten the image or reputation of the
company?
Mary Beth believes that her firm’s reputation, both internally and externally, is driven
by behavior and not corporate communication slogans.
The management decisions that you make about how you’re going to treat
customers and employees will determine what your reputation is no matter
what we tell the news media about it. No matter what statement we make, it’s
really about your behavior and we would always want our statements to be
honest and accurate so it starts with your behavior and the decisions you made
to determine what we can then say about them.
In contrast, Gwen, the district retail manager, bases her reputation measure on how
well a store is doing financially as well as how close they are to their customers. She
believes that the stores that do best are those with “authentic” employees who are able to be
the same selves at work as they are with friends or colleagues. “It’s not authentic if it’s not
the voice you use all the time.” She reflected on her experience at another retail operation
where the managerial norm was a controlling and abusive manner with employees. She
believed that this negative atmosphere reflected onto the relationship (or lack thereof) that
the store was able to build with customers. She believes that this authenticity in her current
firm is cultivated by the “respect and dignity” in the way they communicate with each other.
She feels like this authenticity is also evident to customers, which keeps them coming back.
76
Reputation is also an area Mary Beth counsels her internal clients about so that they
can understand “the value of the action piece”, specifically, the connection between the way
they treat both employees and customers and how this affects their firm’s reputation. She
said that her firm has been able to witness this connection through the American Customer
Satisfaction Index. Sine her firm has started focusing on behaviors, their ratings in this
index, which is measured independently by the University of Michigan, has improved. She
believes that this index has been an important tool to help leaders in her company understand
the need to focus on improved communication and service.
I think if you look at our CEO and our top leaders in the company, they
understand the value of the action piece of it because seven or eight years ago,
we had some customer service issues and it was really impacting our
reputation. In the end, before we could turn our reputation around, we had to
turn our service around and the reputation flowed from that and it took years
to dig out of that. So once we began to change the way we paved and invested
more in service, literally and figuratively, not only in terms of money but also
people and resources and processes around how we were going to measure
and incense people based on how they gave service – it took years to turn that
around but once we did, we began to see our reputation turn around as well.
Keith described the difficulty in quantifying his department’s impact on reputation.
Like Mary Beth, he finds outside research useful. If possible, he said he prefers to rely on
third-party findings from J.D. Powers.
The one thing that is hard to measure is the impact of public relations and
communications on that reputation because you can’t measure it. You’re kind
of in a vacuum. Your reputation evolves and grows and it’s all based on sort
of not just everything that your company does but things can happen around
you that maybe have nothing to do with you. A perfect example of that is what
happened to all energy companies in the post Enron era. Certainly at (my
company) we saw our reputation numbers go down. We didn’t have anything
to do with Enron but just a big energy company crook. And we saw it and we
took a hit and if you’re a corporation, you have reputation challenges just for
being seen as just you’re a “for profit” big 900-pound gorilla and you don’t
throw your weight around. So it’s kind of hard to put out messages and then
see how they will react because it’s kind of hard to say well did they react to
77
that or did they react to something else that was in the marketplace at the same
time?
In summary, the second theme that emerged from the executive interviews was a
focus on managing and protecting their firm’s reputation. The third theme identified in the
analysis of the executive interviews is their goal of promoting dialogue with their key
audiences.
Dialogue with Key Audiences
Along with managing reputations and promoting employee engagement, these
executives believed that it was their role to promote dialogue with their key audiences or
stakeholders. For example, Sharon, the utility firm employee communications manager,
described her job as promoting “dialogue from the company's leadership with various
audiences (media, key leaders, employees). We place a huge emphasis on relationships with
our elected officials and regulators. To maintain those relationships, we have to be perceived
well by our customers.” Yet, the participants generally relayed how dialogue with key
audiences had an impact on employee relations. Sharon described the importance of internal
relations as well and indicated that employee communication was critical to rebuilding trust
in her firm after a recent merger.
That cynicism is also due to the fact that Florida was acquired in the merger.
They feel the previous management team was not straight with them, and so
there's a lot of lingering distrust. In the Carolinas, most employees are pretty
happy to work for this company. The company pays well, particularly as
compared with others in some of the rural communities where our facilities
are located, so you start off with most folks feeling pretty positive.
Karen, the Director of Internal Communications for a software firm, also described
the goal of her department as “letting them (employees) know the company.” She wants her
78
efforts to help employees become more knowledgeable about the company and their place in
it.
In the retail firm, Gwen, the district manager, indicated that her company has a field
implementation manager, whose position falls between her and her boss who was responsible
for disseminating corporate communications to employees on a regional level. The other
person in her organization who contributes to the flow of communication to employees is the
Partner Resources manager. They call this the “PR” manager, even though this person’s job
is located in human resources. This “PR” manager is responsible for communication such as
conference calls to all employees or disseminating information sheets about benefits.
Otherwise, all employee communication flows through Gwen, the firm’s district manager (an
operations rather than staff position), to her managers and partners, or store-level employees.
Gwen described this communication process as being “rolled out, step-wise” from one level
down to another. She liked to call it the “snowball” approach. The type of information that
flows in this process includes information about new processes and new promotions. Even
though she worked in operations, Gwen believes communications are central to helping her
employees understand their critical role in servicing the customer.
These executives identified one of their roles as opening a dialogue with their key
audiences, including employees and external stakeholders. The fourth theme that emerged
from the executive interviews is their belief that their job is distinct from yet coordinated
with the goals and objectives of the marketing department.
Separate from Marketing
In asking each executive to describe their job and role in the organization, they were
quick to explain that their department was not marketing, yet coordinated their messages with
79
marketing, serving in what Mary Beth called “a strategic role.” The executives from the
financial services, energy, utility, and software firms all worked in corporate or internal
communications departments. They saw the world of employee communication from the
lens of its role in corporate communication, along with media relations, public relations,
customer relations, and creative which they said includes both advertising and new media. In
all of these firms, the marketing function was distinct and separate from their focus of
employee communication in their firms.
For instance, Mary Beth identified corporate communications as “managing
relationships with all the stakeholders,” and added that her department works with marketing
to make sure that information going to external publics is consistent with the firm’s internal
messages.
We would have a strategic consulting role when it came to how we
communicate with customers. You know, if there were some sort of customer
issue and we were going to provide talking points to our frontline about how
to respond to it, oftentimes corporate communications may write that or even
if marketing writes it, we would want to see it and have input into what we
were going to say. So I think it’s really about managing your relationship with
all the stakeholders. So there may be certain specific groups within your
organization - you have specific responsibility for one stakeholder or the other
– I think corporate communications is supposed to help manage and maintain
the relationship across all of those.
Mary Beth, when asked about how corporate communications and marketing work
together, summed up other participant’s feelings when she replied,
It’s considered corporate communications and we are in the same division as
marketing but we’re separate departments. We pretty specifically support – I
always tell people we support employee communications and we support
news media relations. Those are the key areas. We would partner with
marketing on things that required a more holistic integrated marketing strategy
and there may be pieces of it they would own and we would own and we
would develop the strategy together.
80
Keith also described marketing at his firm as separate from his department and as
performing more tactical than strategic activities. “The only thing I don’t have is marketing
which is a separate department which is the very specific direct customer outreach. The job
that we have is more the reputation image, brand, overall company brand. They focus more
on promoting rebates and things like that.” Later on, he described more about his thoughts of
why he believes marketing and corporate communications should be separate.
I have no problem with marketing being separate because I think –
particularly when you look at consumer products and things like that where
you’re actually selling something, the marketing folks are dealing with – not
to diminish what they’re doing but they’re dealing with packaging. Consumer
packaging and what it looks like and ads to sell. Like if you’re Proctor and
Gamble, you’re helping – they make Tide I think – how Tide looks and what
are the display ads and what kind of promotions and coupons.
Sharon mentioned that despite having a separate department responsible for external
communication with customers, she feels that her firm does a good job of making sure both
sets of messages are coordinated. “We do a pretty good job coordinating our messages so
that there is no real difference in the essence of what we say to the media or to employees.”
One executive, Katherine, as Corporate Secretary and as a management trainee,
explained that she has had a variety of responsibilities, including marketing.
During the past 2.5 years I spent a lot of time working on improving our company’s
marketing collateral. Most specifically I designed the company’s website, corporate
brochure, redesigned and edited the corporate newsletter, lead a team in
implementing imaging software, and have acted as a support person to the executive
management of the Company.
In summary, only one executive had both corporate communications and marketing
responsibilities. The other executives had responsibilities that they described as both distinct
from yet coordinating with marketing and they believed that this separation was a good thing.
81
The next theme underscores the executive’s belief that they had all channels of
communication at their disposal to share their messages with their stakeholders.
Owning all channels of communication
The executives said they are responsible for all channels of communication with
employees. Keith, the energy executive, described his firm’s approach.
For employee communications, we own all the channels to communicate to
the employees. All of our electronic communications, we have a daily
electronic newsletter. We have several other regular communications vehicles
that go out to employees from human resources and IT and things like that.
That’s one big chunk of the work – it’s managing that process of delivering
the information.
One of the tasks these executives described was working to figure out which
communication vehicles to use when and for what occasions. Mary Beth, the financial
services executive, finds that her internal “clients” whom she counsels on corporate
communication prefer to communicate with their direct reports by issuing memos either in
writing or by email. She believes, however, that there are occasions that call for a more
intimate approach, such as face-to-face communication and tries to help her clients decide
which approach is appropriate for which occasion.
Karen, the Director of Internal Communications, also provides counsel to the
executive leadership team of her company so that they can find more and better ways to
disseminate information to their employees. She asks her managers things like,
“Who is your intended audience and what is the goal of your message?” So
there you can even start to talk about well you know what, a pod cast is not
going to work for this. This can be done through an email or an email is not
going to work and certainly a story on the web’s not going to work because
we want everybody to hear your voice behind this. We want to hear the
strength of your voice behind it. It all depends on the content and the
audience.
82
She also said that she is concerned that they use the best medium for the message they are
trying to disseminate. “We make sure we use the right vehicles for the audience that we’re
trying to reach.”
Keith believes that rather than guessing how employees want to receive
communication, he has to ask them. He finds it best to ask employees how they want to
receive information on important issues. In his experience, employees want to receive any
information about their company benefits in writing, so that they can take them home, read
them over and digest them.
Well, you know, what you have to do is you really have to find out from
employees how they like to be communicated to. There’s been plenty of
research on things that are effective but what you find is there are certain
kinds of information that people like to get a certain way. For example, HR
information and benefits and things like that, most employees like to get a
printed document. If it’s to review their health plan and their benefits, we still
find that employees like to have something to look at in front of them. But if
it’s just like quick company information, announcements and things like that,
they like email or electronic newsletters.
Several of the executives mentioned that it was also important to match the medium
with the message. Sharon, the manager of employee communications, for a utility firm noted
that her firm has found that the mode of communication used depends on the circumstance
for the communication.
We've seen in our research a strong and growing preference for electronic
communication (for us that means the daily email and the intranet). However,
that format works best to inform. Major change management initiatives --
where employees actually have to take action or face radical changes to their
work -- are better done through some sort of face-to-face interaction. I think
there is also a role for print, particularly if you need to educate employees
around a particular set of issues.
Karen, the Director of Internal Communications, for a software firm also echoed the
sentiment that the communications vehicle must match the content. She also believes that
83
multiple communications methods enhance each other quite clearly. She has learned that
not all employees want to receive all of the e-newsletters that are available, so they
encourage employees to “subscribe” to the e-newsletters that they are most interested in.
We’ve just revamped our whole new internal site, we’ve added RSS feeds to
that, we’re eliminating all the newsletters that they get in their email by
putting those news links on the internet and letting them subscribe to the ones
they want to get instead of them getting everything that gets sent out. A man
here that’s fifty years old sure doesn’t want to get a newsletter from healthcare
about breast feeding. So what we’re doing is giving them the option to sign up
for what they want. He probably wants something more geared towards
retirement. So we’re giving them those options. We’re doing a lot of different
ways of channeling the communication to the employee so they get the
information that they need to know and that they want to know. I’m trying to
improve what employees are asking for. At any company we’re going to have
the same communication problems that other companies have but I think
we’ve got room to improve it.
Gwen, the district retail manager, indicated that her firm is moving towards utilizing a
variety of communication channels in order to stay in touch with employees. She believes
that this move is a result of company growth, especially when she travels so much from store
to store and when messages are coming from different sources in her company.
Well there is an expectation of information that needs to be disseminated and
how you do that is somewhat up to your style. In this age of computers–
communication has really changed. We have a lot of different communication
vehicles here at (my company). Obviously we have email. We have a
voicemail system that basically you put in my extension and leave me a
message and I call into it and retrieve the message. All the stores have access.
They have their own mailbox as well so I can leave all the stores messages.
The other thing is that we obviously – I have a home office that I have a
phone at that people can contact me at and I also carry a cell phone. One of
things that we’re really doing now is we’re transitioning much more to cell
phones and email.
So when I first started, the goal for store managers was to check voice mail
three times a day and check email once. Now it’s really check voice mail once
and check email three times because of the way it’s changed and it’s also a
much more cost effective way.
84
In summary, these executives find that they have a wide range of communication
vehicles to choose from when communicating with employees, but they also believe that it is
best to ask employees which way they want to receive specific types of information. The
next theme is the executives’ belief that despite this breadth of communication vehicles to
choose from, face-to-face communication still plays an important role in the way they
communicate with employees.
Face-to-face communication
Despite the variety of media available to these executives, they all believe in the
benefit of maintaining face-to-face communication. Karen, the Director of Internal
Communications, for a software firm said, “There is nothing better than face-to-face
communication.” Mary Beth, the financial services executive, discovered that when her firm
conducted its own in-house employee communication study, “face-to-face communication
with my boss” was the most satisfactory way employees in her firm said they wanted to get
information.
I think we would say based on what we know from social science and based
on what we know from our own surveys of employees, that the most effective
communication is one on one with your manager. And then I would say
beyond that would be in a meeting – a face-to-face meeting with your
manager and there are five to ten people there or a hundred people there. A
face-to-face meeting would be the most effective way because people get the
body language and they can make a decision as to whether or not they think
it’s credible. They can ask questions if they don’t understand something.
Gwen, the district retail manager, believes that face-to-face communication is critical
for store-level employees and their bosses. “Our whole goal is respect and dignity in how we
communicate and it translates to the partners as well as to the customers.”
Face-to-face communication with a supervisor is important in the energy and retail
firms where the employees generally do not use computers during their workdays. Keith
85
believes that the best way his firm keeps those employees “in the loop” is through direct
communication with their supervisor.
Particularly when you’re dealing with a work force like we are, where you’ve
got about 30% or more of the employees who do not have an assigned PC.
They don’t sit at a desk all day; they’re out working in the field. So unlike
those of us who are sitting at a computer all day long and an email pops up on
your screen and you read it almost immediately when you get back from a
meeting, some of these guys might check their email a couple of times a week
or something. So you either have to supplement that with print and as you
suggested face-to-face communication is the most effective in terms of getting
people to understand it. The closer you can get to their supervisor to help
being the person delivering the messages the more effective it is. There are
certain things you want the CEO and senior managers to talk about but if you
really want people to buy and believe it and they need to be hearing things and
having it echoed from their day-to-day supervisors or one level up. You really
try to equip that middle management level with the same information that
senior managers are seeing so they can sort of give it their blessing that it’s
not like b.s.
Katherine believes this intimate form of communication is also important in the
construction materials firm because most of the employees are working in the plants or are
delivering materials to their customers.
In our task-focused, operations-driven business consistent management
announcements made in weekly meetings along with the proper follow up from
management have been successful. Additionally, small groups or one on one
meetings have proven to be successful. Even a quick email from a manager when the
week’s production goals have been met can go a long way. When employees feel like
they’re important and their contributions matter they feel like a part of the Company’s
overall success. Most of the time people simply want to feel like they’re valued.
Whether it’s a quick lunch with a supervisor or a well thought out incentive program
that has the employee’s best interest at heart, good employees will sense when
management cares about them. It’s up to management to come up with creative ways
of communicating with their employees.
In summarizing the executive responses about face-to-face communication, data show
that this type of communication serves a dual purpose. First, it keeps employees informed,
and second, it keeps them secure about their place in the company.
86
Summary
Executive interviews revealed their primary goals of promoting dialogue with all of
their key audiences, managing the reputation of their company’s brand and image, along with
promoting employee engagement. The executives identified a full-range of communication
vehicles they could use to implement these goals with employees, yet believed that face-to-
face communication between an employee and his or her manager was preferred and most
effective for reducing turnover and promoting a sense of community among employees.
Finally, they saw their work as overlapping, yet distinct from the marketing departments,
which they saw as more tactical than strategic.
Figure C is a mindmap of the cluster analysis of the executive interviews. This
mindmap was created through the cluster analysis of the interviews and relating them back to
the relationship management literature. Executives frequently mentioned that the focal point
of their activities is engaging in or promoting dialogue among key audiences. Hence, this
theme is placed at the center of the diagram. The purpose of their dialogue includes both
managing the reputation of the firm and employee engagement, which is reflected in the
horizontal arrows of the diagram. In addition, the mindmap illustrates that these
communication executives have a range of communication vehicles to choose from when
communicating with employees, but that they believe face-to-face communication occupies a
distinct and important place in talking with employees, which is reflected in the diagram’s
vertical arrows.
The executive interviews corresponded more closely with the relationship
management and public relations literatures, including aspects of building relationships. The
87
mindmaps, however, utilize the words of the executives to describe those relationship
management practices.
Figure C. Mindmap of executive perceptions of their role
in promoting open communication
Qualitative Summary
Although new digital forms of communication are emerging, such as email, intranets,
and podcasts, executives believe face-to-face communication helps their firms build trusting
relationships both within and outside of their companies. Employees believe face-to-face
communication is the best way to learn from their manager and build a relationship with that
person. Executives describe internal communication as a way to build better relationships
Managing Reputation Employee Engagement
Dialogue with
Key Audiences
Communication
Own all channels
Of communication
Face
-to-
face
88
with employees, so that they feel more engaged in the mission of the organization, will want
to remain with the organization, and will share that enthusiasm with their customers.
Appendices B and C illustrate my thought process as I analyzed the employee clusters
and then the executive clusters. My goal was to synthesize these responses to create a
collective mindmap. I hoped that this would clarify points of difference and similarity across
employee and executive responses. The mindmaps were created using terms from each set of
interviewees, but it seemed clear that the employee clusters focused on communication as
part of the process of building interpersonal relationships, whereas the executive interviews
focused less on interpersonal relationships and more on how to instill a sense of employee
engagement to meet the goals of the organization or to enhance the firm’s reputation.
In order to analyze the similarities and differences across employee and executive
interviews, a collective mindmap (Figure D, Northcutt & McCoy, 2004) was developed. In
the middle of their thinking, executives see their job as opening dialogue with key audiences,
including employees, but employees believe that this type of dialogue doesn’t occur unless
they happen to work for a manager who is very open-minded. This open-mindedness affects
both the formality of communication managers have with employees as well as whether or
not they offer the opportunity for employees to get and give feedback. Executives agree that
face-to-face communication is important, but employees think of it as an opportunity to talk
with their manager. There is the potential for consensus here, if managers understand that
employees don’t want formal, stuffy communication with their boss, but are seeking informal
opportunities to talk with their boss. In addition, although executives see their ability to
communicate widely through a variety of channels, employees crave informal opportunities
89
to get and give feedback with their boss. Both talking and listening are informal methods of
communication employed by these study participants.
Finally, executives see the goals of better communication to be employee engagement
and managing their firm’s reputation. Employees agree, but see communication more from
their own perspective of enjoying the people they work with and positively affecting the
customers they serve. Again, employees view these twin goals of internal and external
engagement in a way that is much more informal than executives, yet are more focused on
the bottom line. Employees want to affect customer relationships in a positive way and see
how their own work habits and communication styles can actually improve customer
relationships. Executives seem to intuitively know what their end goal of employee
engagement entails, but don’t verbalize it as well as the employees do.
Figure D. Collective mindmap of employee (italic) and executive perspectives
Face
-to-
face
vs.
Talk-
ing
Dialogue with
key audience
vs. Open-
minded
manager
Employee engagement
vs. People
Managing reputation
vs. Customer Impact
Own
all
Chann
els vs.
Feed-
back
90
The employee and executive qualitative in-depth interviews served as a guide for both
developing the focus of the employee survey questions, but also served to interpret these
results. The employee survey results are provided next, with the analysis of those results to
follow in the next chapter.
91
Quantitative Results
The survey was administered after the employee and executive interviews were
completed. The survey questions were based on insights from the interviews as well as
established questions from the literatures on rich communication, relationship management,
publics, trust and commitment. The employee and executive interviews helped to focus the
survey questions on what type of communication methods companies used with their
employees, as well as whether employees felt as if they were treated like an important
audience to their companies. Most of the questions have been used by scholars in public
relations and management to study the concepts of rich communication, trust, commitment,
and publics. The survey was administered using Zoomerang.com, an online survey product.
The survey data were analyzed using the statistical software SPSS in order to answer the
proposed hypotheses.
Respondents
Employees who are alumni of Wake Forest University and the University of North
Carolina participated in the survey research, as well as employees from one Wake Forest
University alumni’s manufacturing firm. A total of 210 participants were invited to take the
survey and 112 completed the survey for a response rate of 39.7%. Of the respondents, 61%
are men, 39% are women. The respondents identified themselves as 93% Caucasian, 3.5%
black, and 3.5% Asian; 2.6% identified themselves as having Hispanic ethnicity. A total of
93.3% of respondents revealed their educational level. The majority of subjects, 63%,
completed a four-year degree, and another 24% had master’s degrees; 4.5% completed an
associate’s degree; 0.9% had a professional degree, and 0.9% had a doctoral degree.
92
The mean age of the respondents was 36.02, with a range from 23 to 64 years of age.
There was some confusion on the part of employees who thought of themselves as both
salaried and professional/technical or as both managers and professional/technical, so
meaningful statistics are not available on the professional/managerial categories. Only one
respondent was an hourly employee and the rest identified themselves as salaried employees.
The respondents had been with their firm for an average of 6.87 years, ranging up to 28
years, and supervised an average of 4.66 people. Each respondent planned to remain with
their current firm for an average of 11.24 additional years. For a list of firms and/or
industries participants worked for, see Appendix B. The means for the demographic
variables are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Mean demographic responses (N=112)
Mean
What is your age? 36.02 years
Range (23-64)
What is your gender? 39% F
61% M
What is your ethnicity? 93% Caucasian
3.5% black
3.5% Asian
2.6% Hispanic
What is your level of education? 4.5% Associates
63 % Bachelor’s
24% Master’s
.9% Professional
.9% Doctorate
6.7% did not report
How would you describe your job in this organization? .9% Hourly
31.2% Salaried
6.4% Supervisor
48% Manager
14% Prof/Technical
How many people are under your direct supervision? 4.66 people
93
How long have you worked at this company? 6.87 years
(range .5-28)
How much longer do you expect to work at this
company? (in years)
11.24 years
The survey data were further analyzed using SPSS software to answer the study’s six
hypotheses. Each hypothesis is addressed below.
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis states “Employees are more likely to receive rich communication
from their managers when their firms convey new product information.” Questions from
Daft, Lengel, and Trevino (1987) and Trevino, Webster, and Stein (2000) about rich
communication were modified and adapted for this study. The results show that email is the
most common method of communication used by managers (mean=5.68), followed by face-
to-face communication (mean=5.34) and finally telephone (mean=4.63). Table 2 shows the
means for each of the nine questions associated with rich communication.
Table 2. Means for rich communication (N=112)
When your company communicates to you about new products, services, or
initiatives…
Means
1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree
My manager uses face-to-face communication. 5.34
My manager uses the telephone to communicate. 4.63
My manager uses email to communicate. 5.69
To what extent would you characterize face-to-face communication as
having the ability to:
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
Give and receive timely feedback 5.96
Provide non-verbal feedback (facial gestures, posture, etc.) 5.75
To what extent would you characterize written communication
(such as memos or letters) as having the ability to:
Give and receive timely feedback 4.76
Provide non-verbal feedback 3.24
To what extent would you characterize electronic communication
(such as email or intranets) as having the ability to:
Give and receive timely feedback 5.71
94
Provide non-verbal feedback 3.40
In order to determine if the values are significantly different from each other, a one-
sample T-test was conducted. The results in Table 3 below show that the means for email
and face-to-face communication are not significantly different from one another, as their
95% confidence intervals overlap. Based on this same T-test, the mean use of telephone
communication is significantly lower than both face-to-face and email communication.
Table 3. One-Sample T-Test of rich communication measures (N=112)
Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Question 1: My manager
uses face-to-face
communication.
35.860 110 .000 5.342 5.05 5.64
Question 2: My manager
uses the telephone to
communicate.
27.124 110 .000 4.631 4.29 4.97
Question 3: My manager
uses email to
communicate.
44.393 111 .000 5.688 5.43 5.94
In examining how employees feel about the richness of the three types of
communication, the results in Table 4 show that face-to-face communication is perceived by
employees as conveying more timely as well as better non-verbal feedback than either
written or electronic communication. Integrating both sets of results, it appears that although
face-to-face communication is perceived as more rich, it is used just slightly less than
electronic and/or email communication. Even though face-to-face communication is
preferred by employees, it is used by them less then email or electronic communication.
Thus, there is mixed support for Hypothesis One.
95
Perhaps this finding reflects advancement in electronic communication. For example,
email is richer than it used to be now that it can convey pictures, sounds, results, and data
analyses.
Table 4. Means of communication richness (N=112)
Face-to-face
Communication
Written
communication
Electronic
communication
…gives and receive timely
feedback
5.96 4.76 5.71
…provides non-verbal
feedback (facial gestures,
posture, etc.)
5.75 3.24 3.40
Hypothesis 2
The Likert-scale questions of control mutuality, communal, and exchange
relationships developed by Grunig and Hon (1999) were used to examine hypotheses 2a,
“Employees’ perceptions of Control Mutuality will be positively related to their sense of a
communal relationship,” 2b, “Employees’ perceptions of Communal Relationships will be
negatively related to their sense of an Exchange Relationship,” and 2c, “Employees’
perceptions of Control Mutuality will be negatively related to their sense of an exchange
relationship.” These questions pertain to issues of how both the organization and the
employee public view each other, as well as the nature of their relationship. For each set of
questions, factor analysis was conducted to make sure that the multiple items loaded more
heavily on their appropriate constructs and that these constructs had an acceptable reliability
score. Both Control Mutuality and Communal Relationships’ reliabilities exceeded the
commonly accepted cut-off value of 0.80, whereas Exchange Relationships approached the
cut-off value (see Table 5). One possible reason for the lower reliability for Exchange
Relationships is that these questions contain several negatively-worded items.
96
Table 5. Means and reliabilities for relationships with employee publics (N=112)
Mean Std. Deviation N
Control Mutuality
4.1811
(.92)
.82627 112
Communal Relationships
4.8795
(.86)
1.12244 112
Exchange Relationships
Cronbach alphas in ()
4.2254
(.66)
1.13870 112
The correlation analysis (see Table 6) shows that both Control Mutuality and
Communal Relationships are negatively related to Exchange Relationships. The correlation
analysis also shows that Control Mutuality and Communal Relationships are positively
related with one another. This means that to the extent that employees sense that they have a
mutual control with the management of their companies, they also feel like they have a
positive relationship with them. Conversely, if they feel they have a transaction-oriented
relationship (Exchange relationship), it is negatively related to their sense of having a more
positive mutual relationship. The tables of means for all items are reported in Table 7. All
hypotheses were supported.
Table 6. Correlations among relationships with employee publics (N=112)
Control
Mutuality
Communal
Relation-
ships
Exchange
Relation-
ships
Pearson Correlation
1 .526** -.234*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .013
Control
Mutuality
N
112 112 112
Pearson Correlation
.526** 1 -.474**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000
Communal
Relation-
ships
N
112 112 112
Pearson Correlation
-.234* -.474** 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.013 .000
Exchange
Relation-
ships
N
112 112 112
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
97
Table 7. Means of employee publics constructs (N=112)
Control Mutuality Mean
To what extent to you agree with these statements?
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
This company and people like me are attentive to what each other say. 4.64
This company believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate. 4.81
In dealing with people like me, this company has a tendency to throw its
weight around. (rev)
4.18
This company really listens to what people like me have to say. 4.43
The management of this company gives people like me enough say in the
decision-making process.
4.27
When I have an opportunity to interact with the management of this company,
I feel that I have some sense of control over the situation.
4.36
This company won’t cooperate with people like me. (rev) 5.42
I believe people like me have influence on the decision-makers of this
company.
4.56
Communal Relationships
This company does not especially enjoy giving others aid. (rev) 5.36
This company is very concerned about the welfare of people like me. 4.48
I feel that this company takes advantage of people who are vulnerable. (rev) 5.16
I think that this company succeeds by stepping on other people. (rev) 5.63
This company helps people like me without expecting anything in return. 3.47
I don’t consider this to be a particularly helpful company for me. (rev) 5.26
I feel that this company tries to get the upper hand. (rev) 4.77
Exchange Relationships
Whenever this company gives or offers something to people like me, it
generally expects something in return.
4.04
Even though people like me have had a relationship with this company for a
long time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us a favor.
3.74
This company will compromise with people like me when it knows that it will
gain something.
4.00
This company takes care of people who are likely to reward the organization. 5.14
Hypothesis 3
Two different trust constructs (Grunig & Hon, 1999; Mishra, 1996) were used to test
Hypothesis 3: “A higher use of internal communication with employee publics will be
positively related to employee trust in the organization.” Testing this hypothesis was a three-
step process, including testing the trust construct for reliability, building an index of internal
98
communication, and finally correlating the internal communication index with the trust
construct.
Construct reliability for the two trust constructs was assessed first. The questions
from Grunig and Hon (1999) are labeled as “Company Trust.” The reliability for this
construct is 0.91 with a mean of 4.84, on a scale of 1 to 7. The individual means are shown
in Table 8. The survey items from Mishra (1996) are labeled as “Managerial Trust” below.
The reliability for this construct is .98 with a mean of 5.448 on a scale of 1 to 7. All
reliabilities exceed the cut-off point of .80. The individual item means are also shown in
Table 9.
Table 8. Means for company trust (N=112)
Company Trust Mean Grunig & Hon (1999)
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
This company treats people like me fairly and
justly.
5.06 Integrity
Whenever this company makes an important
decision, I know it will be concerned about
people like me.
4.25 Integrity; faith
This company can be relied on to keep its
promises
4.74 Dependability
I feel very confident about this company’s
expertise.
5.08 Competence
This company has the ability to accomplish what
it says it will do.
5.32 Competence
Sound principles seem to guide this company’s
behavior.
5.04 Integrity
This company does not mislead people like me. 4.84 Integrity
I am very willing to let this company make
decisions for people like me.
3.88 Dependability
I think it is important to watch this company
closely so that it does not take advantage of
people like me. (rev)
4.64 Dependability;
reversed
This company is known to be successful at the
things it tries to do.
5.66 Competence
99
Table 9. Means for managerial trust (N=112)
Managerial Trust (Mishra, 1996) Mishra (1996)
My manager is straightforward with me. 5.34
My manager is competent and knowledgeable. 5.71
My manager does not try to get out of his/her
commitments.
5.47
My manager does not take advantage of me. 5.35
My manager communicates honestly with me. 5.56
My manager can contribute to my company’s
success.
5.96
My manager behaves consistently. 5.32
My manager does not exploit me. 5.34
My manager does not mislead me in his/her
communications.
5.29
My manager can help my company survive
during the next decade.
5.54
My manager is reliable. 5.63
My manager cares about my best interests. 5.15
My manager does not withhold important
information from me.
4.96
My manager is concerned for my welfare. 5.36
My manager can be counted on. 5.53
My manager can help solve important problems
faced by my company.
5.53
My manager can be trusted. 5.53
In addition, the correlations reported in Table 10 show that both trust constructs are
positively and significantly related at the 0.01 level, but they are substantively different than
each other, because they capture different forms of employee trust. The mean of managerial
trust is higher than the mean for company trust, which may reflect an employee’s stronger
relationship to his or her manager than to his or her company. It might be expected that
company trust might mimic managerial trust, but this disconnect might occur because
employees relate stronger to the communication and relationship they have with their
manager more than with their companies. This relationship will be in direct conflict with the
communication executives whose job it is to bridge this gap.
100
Table 10. Correlation analysis of trust measures
Two indices of internal communication were then created. The first index was
created by additively combining the measures of face-to-face, telephone, and email
communication; the second by weighting each component in terms of its richness, and then
summing the weights. Following Daft, Lengel, and Trevino (1987), face-to-face
communication was weighted three times as heavily as written communication, and
telephone was weighted twice as much.
As hypothesized, both Company Trust and Managerial Trust are positively related to
internal communication, both weighted and unweighted for richness (see Table 11). This
finding means that the ways both managers and companies communicate with their
subordinates determine whether or not a trusting relationship develops.
Table 11. Correlation analysis of trust and internal communication measures
(N=112)
Company
Trust
Managerial
Trust
Internal Communication Pearson Correlation
.262** .333**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.005 .000
N
112 112
Internal Communication
Weighted (by richness)
Pearson Correlation
.258** .378**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.006 .000
N
112 112
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Company
Trust
Managerial Trust
Company Trust 1 .543**
Managerial Trust .543** 1
101
Regression analysis was then conducted to determine the independent effect of each form
of trust on each index of internal communication (see Tables 12 and 13). Hypothesis 3 is
partially supported, because only managerial trust is found to be significantly related to
internal communication and not company trust. When controlling for both forms of trust,
only Managerial Trust is significantly and positively related to each index of internal
communication, as evidenced by the Beta standard errors.
Table 12. Regression coefficients for trust and internal communication
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Model
B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error
(Constant)
10.182 1.493 6.818 .000
Company
Trust
.355 .329 .115 1.079 .283
1
Managerial
Trust
.674 .267 .270 2.526 .013
R2 adjusted
.10
F
7.44***
a Dependent Variable: Internal Communication *** p <.001
Table 13. Regression coefficients for trust and weighted internal communication
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Model
B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error
(Constant)
18.435 3.179 5.799 .000
Company
Trust
.498 .700 .075 .712 .478
1
Managerial
Trust
1.817 .568 .337 3.202 .002
R2 adjusted
.13
F
9.38***
a Dependent Variable: InternalCommWeighted ***p < .001
Hypothesis 4
Hypotheses 4, “Internal communication with employee publics enhances employee
commitment to the organization” examined the relationship between the indices of internal
communication and two types of organizational commitment--affective commitment and
102
continuance commitment--as measured by management scholars Meyer and Allen (1997).
Affective commitment measures the degree of attachment an employee has for his or her
company. The most interesting finding here is that the highest score is found for the
statement “I enjoy discussing my company with people outside it.” This finding is an
indication that if employees feel a part of the company they work for, they could be strong
advocates for their company. Continuance commitment measures the degree to which
employees feel like they have no other job options, which keeps them with their company.
Overall, it appears that the attachment employees feel is stronger than their confidence in
finding alternate employment. This attachment might actually influence the extent to which
they believe they can leave their firm, because those strong feelings might lead them to
believe that this is their “home.” The means for these commitment items are shown in Table
14.
Table 14. Table of means for affective and continuance commitment
(N=112)
Affective Commitment Means Meyer &
Allen 1997
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career
in this company
4.45
I enjoy discussing my company with people outside
it
5.21
I really feel as if this company’s problems are my
own
4.76
I think I could easily become as attached to another
company as I am to this one
3.35 Reversed
I do not feel like “part of the family” at this company 4.86 Reversed
I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this company 4.90 Reversed
This company has a great deal of personal meaning
for me
4.80
I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this
company
4.68 Reversed
Continuance Commitment Meyer &
Allen 1997
It would be very hard for me to leave this company 4.18
103
right now, even if I wanted to.
Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided
I wanted to leave my company now.
4.18
It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave this
company in the near future.
4.18 Reversed
Right now, staying with this company is a matter of
necessity as much as desire.
3.93
I believe that I have too few options to consider
leaving this company.
2.82
If I leave this company now, I would have few
alternatives.
2.95
I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job
without having another one lined up.
3.34
One of the major reasons I continue to work for my
company is that another company may not match the
overall benefits I have here.
3.35
As shown in Table 15, support was not found for Hypothesis 4 based on correlation
analysis using a two-tailed test. However, using a one-tailed test, affective commitment was
marginally and positively related (p <0.10) with both indices of internal communication.
This finding suggests that internal communication can lead to feelings of attachment with
employees, but does not affect their confidence about whether or not they can or should find
employment elsewhere.
Table 15. Correlations of commitment with internal communication
(N=112)
Internal
Communication
Internal
Communication
Weighted
Pearson Correlation
.137 .146
Sig. (2-tailed)
.151 .126
Affective
Commitment
N
112 112
Pearson Correlation
.089 .093
Sig. (2-tailed)
.351 .334
Continuance
Commitment
N
112 112
Previous empirical research has documented a relationship between affective
commitment and an employee’s tenure or seniority with his or her firm (Meyer & Allen,
104
1997). In my study a strong relationship was also found correlating firm seniority with
affective commitment (see Table 16). Thus, organizational seniority was controlled for in all
subsequent analyses predicting affective commitment. Affective commitment has an alpha
of 0.88 and a mean of 4.62 on the 7-point scale. Continuance commitment has an alpha of
0.56 and a mean of 3.627. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is supported when controlling for
seniority. This finding suggests that the longer an employee has been with a firm, the more
attachment he or she feels for it.
Table 16. Correlation between firm seniority and affective commitment
(N=112)
Question
94: How
many years
have you
worked at
this firm?
Affective
Commitment
Pearson
Correlation
1 .367**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Question 94: How
many years have
you worked at this
firm?
N 104 104
Pearson
Correlation
.367** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Affective
Commitment
N 104 112
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 17 highlights the regression results for all variables, including tenure, on affective
commitment. These results confirm that tenure does affect affective commitment.
Therefore, communication executives need to be aware that their efforts to communicate
with employees are important for employees with more seniority, and not just new
employees.
105
Table 17. Regression Table for Influence on Affective Commitment
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Model
B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error
(Constant)
.464 .524 .885 .378
Internal
Communication
-.012 .028 -.031 -.410 .683
Managerial Trust
.204 .081 .217 2.518 .013
Company Trust
.573 .097 .492 5.929 .000
1
Question 94: How
many years have you
worked at this firm?
.064 .015 .312 4.356 .000
a Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis five, “Internal communication with employee publics results in a stronger
firm reputation among internal publics,” was tested by asking for employees to answer the
extent of their agreement with “My company has an outstanding reputation.” The mean of
this question was 5.35 on a 7-point scale. The correlation between internal communication
(both weighted and unweighted) and reputation showed no significant relationship. This
finding could be due to the fact that employees from multiple firms completed the survey and
therefore it was not possible to correlate external reputation data from research firms, such as
J. D. Power, for each employee who participated in the survey research. Future research
should examine one or a limited number of firms that utilize external reputation measures in
order to understand this relationship between internal communication and reputation.
Hypothesis Six
Finally, Hypothesis six examines the impact of trust on employee commitment,
proposing that “Trust will be positively related to commitment.” As hypothesized, affective
commitment was both positively and significantly related to both company trust and
managerial trust, based on both correlation and regression analyses (see Tables 18 and 19).
106
Continuance commitment was not significantly related to either form of trust based on
correlation analysis, and so regression analysis was not conducted. This finding
demonstrates that the relationship employees have with their manager is a stronger indicator
of the attachment they feel to their companies, than whether or not they feel able to continue
working for that firm.
Table 18. Correlation of trust and commitment
(n=112)
Affective
Commitment
Continuance
Commitment
Company
Trust
Pearson Correlation
.617(**) .053
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .582
N
112 112
Managerial
Trust
Pearson Correlation .532(**) -.098
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .304
N
112 112
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 19. Regression coefficients for trust and affective commitment
(N=112)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Model
B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error
(Constant)
.541 .455 1.187 .238
Company
Trust
.544 .100 .465 5.424 .000
1
Managerial
Trust
.266 .081 .280 3.269 .001
a Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment
Communication Preferences
In order to better understand employees’ communication preferences and to
understand if there are differences between positive and negative news delivery, respondents
also were asked about their communication preferences via face-to-face, email and written
communications. The frequencies for each communication method are reported in Table 20.
107
Respondents overwhelmingly preferred to use and receive face-to-face communication for
both good and bad news. Respondents prefer to give both good and bad news in person just
slightly more than they prefer to receive it. Email communication trailed as a distant second
most-preferred method for giving and receiving information. Face-to-face communication,
then, is confirmed as being the most-preferred way to give information to employees as well
as to receive information from a manager.
Table 20. Descriptive statistics of communication preferences
(N=112)
If you are getting bad news from your manager, do you
prefer
• Face-to-face communication 87%
• Written communication 5.0%
• Email communication 6.4%
• Any type of communication (no preference) 1.3%
If you are getting good news from your manager, do
you prefer
• Face-to-face communication 85.6%
• Written communication 0.9%
• Email communication 5.4%
• Any type of communication (no preference) 8.1%
If you are giving bad news to your employees, do you
prefer using
• Face-to-face communication 90%
• Written communication 2.8%
• Email communication 5.5%
• Any type of communication (no preference) 1.8%
If you are giving good news to your employees, do you
prefer using
• Face-to-face communication 90%
• Written communication 0.9%
• Email communication 3.7%
• Any type of communication (no preference) 5.5%
Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Results
Overall, the survey results show that email communication is the method most often
used by employees, closely followed by face-to-face communication. However, face-to-face
108
communication is evaluated by survey respondents to be richer in providing both verbal and
non-verbal feedback. Employee interviews confirm this assessment, as employees
overwhelmingly described a preference for face-to-face communication with their manager
in order to get feedback from them about their job as well as to help build closer relationships
with them. Executive interviews underscored the importance of face-to-face communication,
but they saw their communication toolset to be much wider, including electronic
communication. In addition, these communication executives were not always the ones
providing that face-to-face communication, but instead, were relying on managers to transmit
important company information to employees. Katherine wisely observed that
communication skills are not always a strength of each of her managers.
Most people would agree that effective communication is important in business.
Here’s the catch: not everyone is a great communicator. That is probably the biggest
hurdle for our company. Getting the right people in place to carry the message is
very important. When things are clearly communicated there is less left to the
imagination.
Based on the survey data as well as the interview data, face-to-face communication
still occupies a large share of the communications pie, but other media are encroaching upon
it (see Figure E). The proportions in Figure E come from the descriptions from the
interviewees as well as the survey questions indicating that respondents prefer face-to-face
communication by 80% over other communication vehicles. In addition, the pie shows how
email, phone and intranet communication is much more closely associated with rich
communication, such as face-to-face communication, whereas blogging, memos or satellite
TV are less rich.
109
Figure E. Communications pie
The survey results also show that to the extent that employees sense that they have
mutual control over their jobs with the management of their companies, they also feel like
they have a positive relationship with them. Employees described this mutuality of control
when they talked about how comfortable they felt talking to their manager and how well their
manager listened to them. Conversely, if they feel they have a transaction-oriented
relationship (Exchange Relationship), it is negatively related to their sense of having a more
positive mutual relationship. Employees also verbalized their respect for managers who are
open-minded as opposed to those who are not as willing to listen. Executives did not talk
about this issue much, possibly because they are in essence one step removed from
employees, relying instead on managers to bridge that open-mindedness gap.
The lack of significance for continuance commitment may reflect its more
transaction-based nature, as opposed to the relationship-based nature of affective
commitment. These findings were corroborated by the interviews with both employees and
Face-to-face
communication
Email
communcation
Satellite
TV
memos
Blogging/
podcasts
phone
Intra
nets
110
executives. Employees felt that as they were more able to trust their manager, they were
more committed to their jobs. Executives believed that it was important to build better
relationships, both between employees and their internal communications departments, as
well as between employee and their company, so that employees would remain committed to
their firms. The financial services firm even had metrics in place to reward managers who
were able to retain employees and reduce turnover.
The strength of the relationship between affective commitment and trust was also
reflected in employee comments on communication. Employees described their greater
commitment to those managers who were better communicators and executives described
their desire to build trust among employees as a reason for striving for improved
communication. Employees mentioned feeling closer to their manager when they felt like
they had open and positive communications with them.
In addition, executives explained the role of internal communication as building
employee engagement, which should also enhance affective commitment. Executives
understand the importance of building employee engagement and described it as one of their
two primary roles in their organizations. Keith explained,
I think that is the primary goal of communications is to promote employee
engagement with the company’s strategy and vision. There’s no other reason
for anything else that we do. Why do you have an employee newsletter or
magazine that talks about everything from the company’s business to
philanthropy and employee volunteering. Why do you spend that kind of
money to put out a publication like that? It’s not just to deliver information.
You’re trying to accomplish something to make people feel part of a team and
understand what the company’s doing.
In addition, the survey results show that internal communication leads to a stronger
sense of managerial trust than company trust. This finding might be because employees get
111
more of their information directly from their managers and find it easier to develop a
perspective on the trustworthiness of their manager. Employees’ perspective on internal
communication is “talking with my manager” and less about getting information from
corporate headquarters. Executives, on the other hand, have the job responsibility for
disseminating information from corporate headquarters, so they might not be as attuned to
the benefits of building trust between employees and the company because they are one step
removed from employees.
Affective commitment was found to be significantly related to internal
communication, but not continuance commitment. Therefore, the degree to which employees
feel attached to their company might be as a direct result of the type of internal
communication they receive. In addition, the longer an employee has been with a firm, the
more attached they will feel to their company. Deserei described this phenomenon and said
that when a store is hiring new employees, it is easy for managers to forget to communicate
positive reinforcement to tenured employees. Executives did not describe a distinction
between new and tenured employees.
In the survey, reputation was measured using a self-report item “My company has an
outstanding reputation.” Limited support was found for a relationship between internal
communication and firm reputation. “Managing reputation” was mentioned in the executive
interviews as being one of their primary duties. Two of the firms--energy and financial
services--used outside measures of reputation to measure their progress towards that
reputation goal. While the employees in their interviews did not use the word “reputation”
they did agree that one of the goals in their jobs was to make sure their customers were
happy. Employees and executives saw reputation as a critical outcome of open
112
communication, but it is not clear if this is an internal goal or an external one. It is also not
clear what universal reputation measure is best to use for this study as there is not one
dimension that covers all of the organizations who participated. It is clear, however, that
firm reputation or image is important to all individuals interviewed for this study. They care
about the way their employees, customers, community and even their suppliers perceive them
and their actions.
No relationship could be found for internal communications and reputation, but that
could be due to the inability to get external reputation data. Employees understood how their
actions affected what their customers thought of them and their firm, and executives were
intently focused on managing their firms’ reputations through their communication efforts.
Again, there might be a disconnect here between the front-line employees who are actually
affecting reputation and the executives who are attempting to manage the firm’s reputation
from afar. Finally, the quantitative analysis showed affective commitment is significantly
related to both managerial trust and company trust. The more attached an employee feels to
his or her company, the more he or she trusts both his or her manager and his or her
company. The employees echoed this finding relating stories of how they felt attached to
their company due to the strong relationships they have with their manager. Executives did
not focus on trust, per se, in their job responsibilities nor communication goals.
Employee vs. Executive Perspectives
In this study, employees and executives talked about communication differently.
Employees talk about communication with their manager and each other as though it is an
integral part of their work every day, yet executives talk about communication as something
to be managed, like a process or a machine. Employees think face-to-face communication is
113
the most critical aspect of relating to their manager or company and the executives would
agree, but the latter mentioned that they still have to coach their internal clients on how to do
a better job relating to employees. These executives have found that their clients would
rather send out a memo than walk over and talk to an employee. Executives also see many
communication vehicles available to them to send messages to employees, and don’t always
see that face-to-face is fastest or easiest. The differing pattern of perspectives between
employees and executives may reflect the latter’s fragmented attention or
compartmentalization with multiple employees to manage.
Executives even had specific names or jargon for this process: corporate
communication, employee communication, or internal communication. They find it distinct
from both marketing and public relations. For these executives, corporate communication or
internal communication best describes the work they do to communicate with employee
constituents. The implication is that communication is different than marketing or public
relations to these executives.
Employees did not use specific names or jargon for this process. They refer to this
type of communication as “talking.” They recognize that having the ability and comfort
level to talk to their boss each day is what makes them feel secure and happy in their jobs.
They are very astute in understanding which managers are receptive to this type of open
communication and which managers shy away from it.
As a result, employees and executives have different conceptions in how and why
they communicate and there is room for miscommunication to occur. Managers might feel
that they must present information to employees (as mandated by their supervisors or by the
internal communications department), yet employees seek opportunities for informal and
114
open dialogue with their managers. This alone could contribute to an employee’s sense that
his or her manager is not open to dialogue because they are always in a presenting mode of
communication. This also leaves a void between employees who seek intimate
communication and communication executives who plan it—what person or role is there to
advocate on behalf of what employees want?
Summary
These survey questions were analyzed last, after the interviews were completed and
analyzed. In the discussion chapter that follows, the interview responses and survey results
will be triangulated in order to better understand how both employees and executives feel
about internal communication and how it relates to the relationship management literature.
The discussion chapter will evaluate how the results relate to the literature presented
earlier, as well as how the qualitative and quantitative data relate to each other. The research
questions will be evaluated based on the interview data and the survey data will be
interpreted in light of the literatures discussed earlier. Finally, the discussion will address
issues not posed in the research questions or hypotheses, such as the juxtaposition of the
employee and executive perspectives, the formality of communication approaches, the role of
ethical communication, the view of multiple stakeholder roles, and the managerial
implications of this research. The next chapter will present the discussion of these results
and suggestions for future research.
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of internal communication
on employee’s levels of trust and commitment to their organizations, in addition to its effect
on the employee’s perspective of his or her firm’s reputation. The study used the concept of
relationship management in order to understand the role that internal communication plays in
building positive relationships with employee publics. The findings begin with an analysis of
the qualitative and quantitative data within the context of the extant literature.
Findings from the research questions and hypotheses
Understanding the place for rich communication
Role of face-to-face communication
The qualitative and quantitative analysis indicated that both employees and
executives believe effective communication is essential to both doing their jobs and
appreciating their jobs. These findings support Botan’s (1992) conclusion that
communication should be the focus of building relationships with publics. Grunig and
Huang (2000) also concluded that the two-way nature of communication (such as talking and
listening) were important in building relationships between an organization and its public(s).
Specifically, interview findings from employees found that they relied heavily on face-to-
face communication to both receive and provide information with their manager and with
each other. Executive interviews underscored the importance of face-to-face communication
116
among all communication methods available to them. It appears then that the rich method of
face-to-face communication is effective for building relationships between firms and their
employees, which supports the contentions of Daft, Lengel, and Trevino’s (1987) findings
that face-to-face communication is considered the most-rich type of communication. That is,
face-to-face communication is better able to provide information back to the listener in terms
of both verbal and non-verbal feedback. This study’s findings, however, go beyond previous
research and point to the different interpretations by executives and employees of the
importance of face-to-face communication.
Referring back to the collective mindmap (Figure D), these results diverge where
each party defines the importance of face-to-face communication. Executives see this type of
communication as one method among many for promoting dialogue with their key audiences,
but employees see this as integral for interpreting whether or not they have an open-minded
manager who they are able to talk to. The executive interview responses concurred with the
importance that employees place on face-to-face communication, yet disclosed that their
managers are not always equipped to deal face-to-face with their direct reports. In the
software firm, face-to-face communication was deemed important enough that her firm’s
management development program included training specifically on how managers can be
better communicators. Future research should ask managers about their level of expertise in
face-to-face communication, as well as ask organizations how they help managers improve
this skill.
Role of Feedback
Feedback, one aspect of rich communication as measured by Daft, Lengel, and
Trevino (1987), is not something that this author initially thought was an important part of
117
internal communication however, employees repeatedly mentioned that feedback from their
manager made them feel more connected to their manager and their company. Executives
talked about the need to coach their managers on how to give feedback to employees so that
it was timely and useful. Finally, the survey results show that employees feel that feedback
is indeed considered important and that face-to-face communication provides both timely and
non-verbal feedback to employees. Feedback, then is an important aspect not only of rich
communication, but of internal communication. The relationship management literature
briefly suggests that better communication is important, but does not give specifics on what
types of communication are important or the steps that must be taken to improve
communication. Grunig’s (1993) two-way communication would imply that feedback would
be a component of an organization and its public communicating back and forth with each
other, but he is not explicit about feedback. Hence, this study contributes an essential
component to understand the significance of effective communication, specifically by
managers, to employee trust and job satisfaction.
In addition, employees in this study want to talk to their manager in order to get
feedback but the executives interviewed were the ones planning the communication, not
actually implementing it. In addition, the executives did not factor feedback into their
discussion, a determination of which channel to use for which message. Some channels only
provide one-way communication which might make it less trusted. Grunig (1983) suggests
that publics can perceive a difference between symbolic and behavioral communication and
one-way communication is inherently symbolic in that it says something, but does not have
to follow-up. Two-way or behavioral communication, on the other hand, suggests that the
provider is willing to engage in dialogue and actually make changes as a result of that
118
dialogue. That discrepancy could also explain a disconnect between what employees and
executives agree is important. If the executives are only planning communication and not
implementing it, they do not actually know how effective it was or how it was eventually
implemented unless they conduct research. Thus, future research should consider how time
constraints and training budgets influence the utilization of various communication media.
In addition, future research should consider whether employees should have a voice at the
planning phase of communications to make sure communication is both planned and
implemented in ways that are most effective for them. Future research should also look at
whether or not executives use research to consider the employees’ voices. Finally, future
research should look at which media channels offer the best two-way interactions.
The employee interviews revealed that the participants felt more valued when they
have a manager who is willing to listen and provide feedback to them. Toth (2000) described
communication as an important component in building interpersonal relationships and
listening might be the method to achieve this. As seen in Figure F, a study by Steil, Barker,
and Watsoh (1983, p. 5) found that reading and writing are emphasized in formal learning,
yet employees spend more of their working days talking and listening. This study may help
explain why employees feel that there is a disconnect between what they want from their
managers and what their managers can actually do. It also helps to explain why the
employees interviewed described some of their managers as open-minded and willing to
listen while finding other managers less able to be open-minded and willing to listen. If
companies do not provide sufficient time for or access to face-to-face communication or do
not have interpersonal or group communication training in place to help managers do a better
119
job at talking, listening, and providing constructive feedback, then it may be the “luck of the
draw” as to whether an employee actually works for a boss with these capabilities.
Figure F. Pie chart of reading, writing, talking and listening
(From Steil, Barker, & Watsoh, 1983, p. 5)
Role of other communication channels
The results of this study show that communication other than face-to-face are
employed. The survey responses showed that email communication is also used by
managers, just slightly more than face-to-face communication. Greater use of email
communication might occur because it is “more rich” in terms of allowing graphics, audio, or
video to be included in the email communication. It is also easier and quicker for managers
who are under time pressures or who might have many subordinates reporting to them.
However, survey respondents demonstrated a preference for using face-to-face
communication for many reasons, including giving good and bad news, or getting good or
bad news. One reason may be that employees don’t necessarily have access to email in the
course of their workday. This finding is similar to Toth’s (2000) assertion that relationships
are built using interpersonal communication. The relationship management literature,
WRITING
(least used,
most
taught)
9%
LISTENING
(most used,
least
taught)
45%
READING
(next least
used,
next most
taught)
16%
TALKING
(next most
used,
next least
taught)
30%
120
however, did not touch on specific communication methods but insisted on the general
importance of communication (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Toth, 2000). Future research
should consider what specific methods build positive relationships.
Additionally, results of the executive interviews revealed that these managers found it
useful to ask employees how they wished to receive communication, rather than relying on
their own views. This finding goes beyond Trevino, Webster, and Stein’s (2000) study that
found that managers chose which medium to use to disseminate information based on their
own perceptions of how rich the media were or how rich the media needed to be for that
situation. It appears that while face-to-face communication is perceived as richer, it is used
just slightly less than electronic, or email communication. This finding fits with what the
executives said; specifically, they felt that they owned an array of communication vehicles to
communicate with employees. Perhaps one reason why face-to-face communication is used
to a lesser extent is because of the time and effort it takes to do it properly. In order for
communication to be decoded properly, it must be encoded carefully. Hall (1980) described
this encoding-decoding process in mass communication in the context of television when a
message is sent across the airwaves a certain way, hoping that the audience will receive it in
as intended. This encoding-decoding process requires thought on the part of the person
initiating the communication about how it will be interpreted by the receivers. Email
communication does not necessarily require as much thought because it is easy to fire off an
email whereas we might stop to consider our words before entering someone’s office. In
addition, email does not require the person talking to also listen, and does not involve any
interpretation of non-verbal messages. This study found, however, that electronic
communication is used more frequently by employees and their managers than face-to-face
121
communication, which may be a function of the increasing potential richness of such
communication since the work of Daft et al. (1987) and Toth (2000). It may also be due to
the lack of training individuals receive in being effective face-to-face communicators,
whether in a formal academic setting or through on-the-job training.
This study finds that despite technological advances in the workplace, and the
potential richness of electronic communication, employees still prefer having that face-to-
face communications with their manager. In addition, instead of managers deciding for
themselves which medium to use, three of the executives spoke of surveying their employees
to determine how to best communicate with them. Moreover, some of the firms, seeing the
opportunity for using digital technology such as email to communicate better with
employees, had the foresight to understand that it is best to ask employees which format they
want to receive specific types of information. Negroponte (1995) suggested that the
advantage of using multiple media is that each medium can fill information gaps for the
others. This study’s survey asked only about how firms disseminate new product
information. Subsequent research should investigate other types of common information
employees receive on a regular basis, including information about employee benefits or
corporate strategy. Future research should also examine the impact of digital technology on
rich communication and its place in it. Future research should also examine the proportion of
face-to-face communication versus other media and how employees feel these media should
be allocated in a communications pie (see Figure E). In addition, it would be useful to ask
employees who do not use computers as a regular part of their day how they perceive the
uses of both face-to-face and email communication.
Employees as Publics
122
What is significant from this study is how important the executives believe employees
are as publics. They indicated that their jobs have shifted from an external public focus to an
internal focus, involving employee engagement. This topic has garnered some attention in
books (e.g., Axelrod, 2000) and human resources trade publication (e.g., Lockwood, 2007),
and is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. As mentioned in the study rationale,
however, employees have been an understudied public or population in public relations
research. Although a few public relations scholars have identified employees as an important
public to help fulfill the mission of the organization (Grunig, 1993; Grunig & Huang, 2000),
this omission by other scholars may be because the traditional public relations job has
focused on building relationships with external constituents, particularly media. Hence,
further research may build on these findings and examine practitioner understanding of the
significance of the employee role. Public relations scholars have focused on the concepts of
mutuality and trust to explain the relationships organizations have with their publics.
Relationship Management
The relationship management definition from Ledingham and Bruning (2000) defines
this concept as the focused attention of public relations professionals to create mutually
beneficial relationships with their publics. This definition, however, does not include the
process of how those relationships are built; for employees, the process is primarily through
interpersonal communication such as face-to-face communication. Botan (1992) and Toth
(2000) both indicated that communication should be a focal point of building relationships.
Ledingham and Bruning agree that communication is important, but do not include it in the
definition of relationship management. Both employee interviews and surveys supported this
notion of the importance of face-to-face communication in building close relationships with
123
their managers. A new definition of relationships management should include the aspect of
interpersonal communication. This might make relationship management a more ethical
practice (Carroll, 2006).
Relationship management is the focused attention of public relations
professionals to create mutually beneficial relationships through interpersonal
communication with their publics.
In addition, future research needs to consider how “mutually beneficial” these
relationship management efforts truly are, as the benefits to managers are clearer than those
for employees. Mutual benefit implies something positive for each party—a balance or
equity in the relationship. Interviews reveal that face-to-face communication helps
employees to feel secure in their jobs due to a closer relationship with their manager. This is
helpful for management, as employees’ security might reduce turnover, but it is less clear
what benefit employees accrue other than ones that ultimately benefit the organization. This
results in an imbalance between management and employees. If mutual benefit is to remain
in the definition of relationship management, managers will have to make more of an effort
to make sure employees find it as beneficial as they do. If workplace democracy is to be
truly realized (Deetz, 1992) then employees need to feel that they have more control in
decision-making as well as have opportunities to talk with their manager.
Control Mutuality
Consequently, this study did not find employees and executives talking about
mutuality in their relationship. The survey results reveal that mutuality is important to them
when asked, but in the forum of an open-ended interview, the word mutual or mutuality did
not occur. There was no evidence that relationship management was thought to be a tool of
mutual decision-making between employees and their managers. Instead, executives talked
124
about employee engagement and employees talked about the interpersonal aspect of their job,
including enjoying the people they work with (both co-workers and customers). This finding
refutes what Thomlinson (2000) found about the expectation the parties have for each other,
aspects of control mutuality, communal relationships, and exchange relationships. Toth
(2000) emphasizes the ways parties communicate with each other to build relationships, and
this study demonstrates that the more open-minded a manager is, the more likely employees
will perceive a positive interaction and will see that face-to-face communication is a means
to building a better relationship.
It would appear that firms must find ways to simultaneously increase the level of
communal relationships and reduce the level of exchange relationships if they want their
employees to feel as though they are equal contributors toward their firms’ missions. As
exchange relationships are positively related to communal relationships, however, there may
be some threshold for exchange relationship below which communal relationships also begin
to suffer. Future research should survey employee attitudes about their ability to participate
in decision-making in addition to their direct managers’ so that discrete differences can be
identified between how employees perceive their place in the organization as well as how
their manager communicates that to them.
Trust
Another purpose of this study was to determine which communication method(s)
were most effective for building trust between the company and its employees. Specifically,
research question one asked, “How do organizations communicate with employees to create
trusting relationships with employees?” The findings support what public relations scholars
Grunig, Grunig, and Ehling (1992) suggested--that trust was an attribute of relationships with
125
publics to be measured and cultivated. Grunig and Huang (2000) found that successful
relationships between an organization and its publics emerged from mutual trust, and
Bruning and Ledingham (2000) called for more research into a complete definition of trust.
The items used to measure trust in this study come from both public relations (Grunig
& Hon, 1999) and business management (Mishra, 1996) scholars. The public relations trust
questions (company trust) asked about feelings of trust between the employee and the
company, whereas the management trust questions (managerial trust) asked about feelings of
trust between the employee and his or her manager. The mean scores are higher for
managerial trust than company trust, which may reflect the salience of managers over a
company in employees’ trust assessments. This finding might also indicate that employees
are able to put their trust more easily in a person, such as their manager, rather than their
company because it is easier for them to evaluate their managers’ actions when it affects
them most directly. Their company’s actions, however, may be evaluated at a collective
level, as well as at a personal level. Company Trust and Managerial Trust appear to enhance
one another.
Managerial Trust is significantly and positively related to each index of internal
communication but it is most positively related to face-to-face communication. It appears
then, that face-to-face communication is the most effective communication method for
building trust between employees and their employer. The executive interviewees did not
bring up the issue of trust, except for Sharon in relating communication to rebuilding trust
after a merger. Employees, however, describe how communication helped to improve their
relationships with their managers, co-workers, and customers. Executives did not focus on
trust or relationship building in the same way.
126
In future research, it will be important to construct a more-refined measure of internal
communication because there are no published questions discovered that were explicitly
relevant for this construct. In refining this measure, I would ask questions about how often
managers communicate with employees using each medium, as well as the type of
information that is shared with employees. It would also be important to find out whether or
not employees feel like they have input as to the type of information they receive and how
they would prefer to receive it. Finally, I would ask the employees if they feel that this
information is adequate in order to help them in their customer relationships, and if they have
the opportunity to provide feedback to their manager. If employees truly understand how
their jobs and actions affect their customer’s perceptions of them and their company, then it
will be important to understand exactly how they use this information in their jobs and how
providing feedback to their manager affects their levels of trust and commitment to the
organization.
Trust and Commitment
This study also makes a significant contribution to the impact of commitment in
employee communication, which was explored through Research Question two, “How do
organizations communicate with employees to create a sense of commitment with
employees?” While public relations scholars have focused on trust between an organization
and its publics, the topic of commitment has not been as widely studied. Grunig and Huang
(2000) found that the level of commitment between an organization and its publics could be
used as a barometer for the health of the organization. Business management scholars Meyer
and Allen (1997) have studied many forms of commitment and found that affective and
continuance commitment built trust between parties. Affective commitment is feelings of
127
attachment to an organization and continuance commitment is a desire to remain with the
organization.
Controlling for seniority, internal communication was found to be positively related
to trust and affective commitment. This is an important finding because it is easy to lose
sight of established employees in favor of spending time training and engaging new
employees. In one of the interviews, an employee identified this problem of neglecting
established or old employees, thinking that they can function without feedback and
encouragement. This employee recognized the link between continual feedback and
commitment to creating a positive customer experience. If this link is a barometer of health
of an organization, as Grunig and Huang (2000) suggest, then healthy organizations will not
neglect more senior employees at the expense of newer ones. Future research should
examine the differences in the trust and commitment levels between newer and more senior
employees in one organization. It would also be helpful to understand how managers split
their time communicating with both new employees versus those with more seniority. In
addition, future research should consider what helps an employee feel more attached (or
affectively committed) to his or her organization? This study would suggest that seniority
contributes to attachment, but that internal communication must be in place to develop those
attachments.
Reputation
Additionally, this study contributes to the understanding of reputation and employee
communication, as addressed through Research Question three, “How do organizations
communicate with employees to create a positive reputation with employees and with
customers?” Employees interviewed understood that their work has direct customer impact
128
and ultimately affected their perception of the firm. Executives talked about protecting and
managing the reputation of their company, but believed that they did not necessarily have
direct influence on reputation. They believed that their company’s behaviors would
ultimately be judged and would then affect their firm’s reputation. Referring back to the
collective mindmap (Figure D), employees feel that they have a direct influence on their
firm’s reputation, but executives do not. If executives do not feel like they have direct
impact on reputation, but employees do feel they have direct impact, it would seem that the
employees are actually the ones with the power to either build or destroy reputation, based on
their actions.
Grunig and Huang (2000) suggested that an organization’s reputation is an outcome
of its behaviors that a public remembers. It makes sense then, that more and more
consumers take note of how organizations care for employees and their evaluation of this
even affects their purchase decisions (National Consumer’s League, 2006). The Consumer’s
League study found that customers care about how firms take care of their employees and
will make purchase decisions based on whether or not those actions are aligned with their
own values.
While a firm might consider spending more money on customer relationships (such as
advertising) as a way to improve market share or reputation, ultimately, studies have found
that employees are more credible to consumers than advertising (Edelman, 2006). It might
be time to reconsider the model on page 34 where two-way communication leads to trust,
commitment and a positive reputation. Organizations might have to give up some control
and put more emphasis on promoting better internal relationships between employees and
managers by training managers in interpersonal communication. This training would include
129
listening skills, feedback skills, and consensus building. If employees are truly engaged in
the mission of the organization, they will be a more cost-effective and more compelling
ambassador for the organization than advertising.
Summary
One of the reasons for studying two of these firms in particular is that they are on
Fortune’s 2006 Most Admired List of companies to work for, so they already have a
reputation for valuing employees as assets. Two of the executives described their employee
engagement mandate as coming from their CEOs. Two other executives mentioned how
public relations research had guided their communications thinking and planning. Future
research should consider how firms make the decision to value employees as a distinct
public. In addition, future research should examine the rationale of valuing employees as
publics to determine whether or not this is driven internally by a CEO or by a communication
professional’s knowledge and experience.
Other Findings
In addition to discussing how the findings relate to the extant literature, additional
concepts emerged from this study that deserve attention. Specifically, these concepts are
internal communication, employee engagement, formal versus informal communication,
ethical communication, and stakeholder roles. Contributions from this study are described in
this section.
Internal Communication
Internal communication is the word that best describes this process of utilizing face-
to-face and other communication vehicles to build mutually beneficial relationships with
employee publics. This word is an effective descriptor of this process because it is not
130
marketing-oriented and it is not public relations-oriented. Despite the emphasis on integrated
marketing communication, these two disciplines struggle over who controls information both
externally and internally. By utilizing the term internal communication, it does not imply
any departmental ownership. It also differentiates itself from external communication, which
is focused on customers. The benefit to organizations in promoting internal communication
is to turn employees into brand ambassadors (Forrester, 2007). Firms benefit from
employees who are enthusiastic advocates for their employer, as the Edelman (2006) study
found that employees are more credible to customers than paid advertising. The benefits to
employees include a sense of ownership in the firm’s activities and goals, which can also
enhance self-esteem and confidence in employees.
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is not a term used in the relationship management literature
(Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Toth, 2000). It emerged from the interviews with executives,
however, as a critical component of their job responsibilities. The executives in this study
described their responsibilities as building dialogue with key audiences, which included both
an internal component of employee engagement and an external component of managing
their firm’s reputation. These executives were aware that their employees are an important
public, and considered them equal in value to investors or customers. Three of the firms had
departments, in fact, specifically designed to manage relationships with employees.
Referring back to the collective mindmap (Figure D), executives focus on engagement as a
goal of their communication efforts, while employees focus on relationships with people as
an outcome of the communication efforts of the company.
131
Because employee engagement was not part of the initial literature review, a search
was conducted to determine how well entrenched this term is in the public relations
literature. Several practitioner articles were found which discussed measuring employee
engagement as a result of internal communication efforts (e.g., Sudhakar &Sujit, 2006). The
only academic journal found that included articles on employee engagement is Strategic
Communication Management. One study by Shaw (2006) asked both communication and
HR professionals at companies around the world what drives employee engagement in their
organizations. “According to over 1000 respondents, senior leadership is the single most
important factor in building a committed and loyal workforce” (p. 14).
Employee engagement, then, is a concept that crosses the boundaries of human
resources and communications professionals. If this concept is being driven by the goals of
CEOs of companies, but is not being taught or researched by public relations scholars, there
is an opportunity to provide guidance for our public relations and corporate communications
professionals with new research in this area. This concept includes employees’ interest and
ability in expressing the goals and vision of the company, their commitment to their firm, and
how their engagement affects the reputation of the firm. Employee engagement has potential
benefits to both the employer and employees.
Formal vs. Informal Communication Approaches
One other noticeable difference among the interviewees was the way the corporate
communications executives (from energy, banking, software, and the utility) talked about
corporate communications versus how the executives from the more entrepreneurial firms
(retail and construction materials) talked about employee communication. The corporate
communications executives talked about a more formalized and strategic approach towards
132
employee communications, having a specific department, roles, and communication vehicles
in place to accomplish specific communication goals. This is very similar to the Carroll and
Buchholtz (2000) five-step method of stakeholder analysis, as outlined earlier. In addition,
these communication executives even relied on public relations research to guide their
communications planning.
On the other hand, the more entrepreneurial firms did not have a separate
corporate communications department, but handled the employee communications
function along with their human resource, management, or operations roles. Those
executives recognized that communication is important, but managed communication
through employees’ immediate supervisors rather than from a corporate perspective.
This probably reflects the less-developed organizational structures and fewer distinct
roles in these types of organizations. Communication differences might be attributed
to the presence of a dedicated communications professional in the organization.
Ethical Communication
This study found that employees interviewed trust managers more who are more
open-minded and willing to listen. This finding supports the argument by business ethics
scholar Archie Carroll (2006) that ethical organizations take care of their employees,
working to build trust with them through open communication efforts, as well as
demonstrating respect for employees and acting with integrity in all employee relations. He
claims that if management does not demonstrate transparency, supportiveness and a
willingness to listen, employees will end up with less trust in management. Trust could also
be a mutual benefit to both employer and employee.
133
Both Carroll (2006) and Deetz (1992) identify open communication as ethical
communication, or contributing to an ethical organization. They contend that if companies
are willing to engage in dialogue with employees, then that is one way to examine a firm’s
values. Indeed, one executive mentioned in his interview that this strategy of internal
communications was central to his firm’s efforts to be an ethical organization.
Future research should measure the ethicality of a firm, its level of open
communication in its organization, and the degree to which there is an opportunity for give
and take between the company and employees. In addition, future research should ask
employees if they prefer to work for employers that are perceived as more ethical. Paine
(2003) found that customers want to buy from ethical organizations. Future research should
consider whether or not customers and employees agree that open communication is more
ethical, if customers are more willing to demonstrate a purchase preference for such firms,
and whether customers or employees even care about ethical communication.
In addition, if firms are engaging in ethical communication and hence, ethical
behavior, do these new internal communications professionals adhere to ethics codes, such as
those for advertising or public relations professionals? A code might help clarify what the
overriding goal of internal communication should be. Future research should consider
whether a separate code of ethics for internal communications professionals would enhance
both their visibility and their strategic performance.
Multiple stakeholder roles
Gronstedt (2000) believes that one impetus for internal communication is the fact that
employees as stakeholders now have more than one role with a company. They might be an
employee by day, but act as board members by night, representing their company to
134
nonprofit and governmental organizations. In addition, employees share their positive and
negative feelings about their employer with friends and neighbors. This blurring of roles
contributes to a sense that employees must be taken more seriously as a public. Future
research should ask employees what other roles they play in their communities, to understand
this multiple stakeholder role and how it affects both internal and external communication.
This is another area that might provide mutual benefit to both employees and organizations.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this study, several recommendations can be made regarding
the significance of this study on subsequent research, professional training, and development.
The following sections discuss what next steps should be considered.
What we should research?
In order to advance the study of employees as publics and how internal
communication can build trust and commitment, public relations scholars should study firms
in-depth who do a good job of building strong relationships with employees, such as those on
the Fortune’s Most Admired list, whose employees are known for being advocates for their
companies. Based on the findings of this study, it would be valuable to hypothesize that
employees who feel attached enough to their organization to want to advocate for it must feel
trusted by and committed to their organizations. Researchers should investigate if this word
“employee engagement” describes what executives are looking for as well as what
employees are feeling. Employee engagement is not used in mainstream public relations
journals, so there is room to begin a new conversation. Is this a new role for public relations
professionals? Does the impetus for this goal come from the professionals themselves, or
from CEOs?
135
Researchers also need to understand if face-to-face communication is the only
method for building these close relationships or if any electronic media or other tools can
produce similar results. We might find that initial relationships are built face-to-face, but can
be maintained through other communication vehicles. Future research should examine how
trust is built over time (Mishra & Mishra, working paper) and whether face-to-face
communication is the only way to establish and maintain trust. Future research should also
consider whether or not face-to-face communication translates well into other
communication vehicles. Can email communication become more like face-to-face
communication if the other person’s face is attached to email or instant messaging
communication? Does this add a “sense of presence” (Rappa, personal conversation, 2007),
where a photo creates a feeling of intimacy? It would also be valuable to explore the
differences between synchronous and asynchronous communication. Does timeliness
matter?
In addition, future research should consider which communication methods
employees prefer and have access to. Face-to-face communication exemplifies the “high-
tech, high-touch” approach advocated by Gronstedt (2000) to build trust internally with
employees. Employees seem to crave this type of information and feedback from their
bosses and even from each other. Studies can be conducted to compare internal
communication efforts via face-to-face communication with other communication channels.
The firms that already employ multiple methods of communicating with employees would be
a good place to start. Future research should consider how these communication methods
contribute to relationship management efforts to manage relationships thoughtfully. This
aspect becomes important in building the proper definition for relationship management.
136
In addition, researchers should investigate how firms are able to train managers to be
good communicators, and if they are not able to, why not. One way to examine this would
be to identify the Meyers-Briggs type indicators of the managers to determine if this open-
minded manager is related to personality. If Myers-Briggs personality type is correlated with
an open or closed-minded manager, then this will help communication executives know how
to train managers to use their type to their advantage as well as to relate better to their
subordinates of a different type. There might be other measures other than personality that
would help predict open versus closed-minded managers.
Future research should also examine the role of middle managers to determine what
affect they have on employees trust and commitment to the organization. The model on page
34 is not explicit about the role middle managers play in disseminating communication to
employees. This study found that managerial trust was more powerful than company trust,
and middle managers play an important role in that process. Examining the roles of
employees, middle managers, and communication executives will help uncover the “nexus of
tension” (Rappa and May, personal conversation, 2007) that exists at the middle management
level as they implement with employees what executives plan.
There is also an opportunity to examine the differences between employees’
relationships with business-to-business clients versus business-to-consumer publics. More
firms are encouraging their employees to blog as a way to build relationships with customers
(Mishra & Li, 2007). Future research should examine whether improving internal
communication matter in both contexts by examining the amount of interaction employees
have with each set of customers and if these relationships affect purchase intention or
customer satisfaction.
137
Finally, researchers need to study the process of internal communication. Does
talking and listening lead to strategizing, planning, and implementation? What steps must
occur first to engage employees so that they feel like they are contributing to the mission of
the organization?
What should we teach?
As public relations teachers, we need to instruct our students more about face-to-face
communication and how it builds trust with others. As mentioned previously, the study by
Steil, Barker, and Watsoh, (1983) shows that schools do not teach listening or effective
communication as much as they are used in a day-to-day work environment. We also need to
teach students how to give and receive feedback, as this seems to be a critical skill that
employees seek in a good manager. We can also do a better job of teaching students how to
communicate utilizing new media. As employees use email communication more, we need
to teach when it is appropriate to use email and for what type of messages. We also need to
train students to consider what alternate media is useful, if computers are not accessible
during the workday. These types of interpersonal communication and group communication
courses are typically taught in organization communication departments, which is separate
from business or journalism schools. It might be beneficial to provide an interdisciplinary
course in organizational communication that brings together the perspectives of all
departments.
One executive mentioned that he was having difficulty finding professionals trained
in the field of corporate communications, so teachers could fill this gap by helping students
to see the relationship between internal and external communications. In addition, one
executive mentioned that it would help if students understood the business aspects of their
138
jobs more, to be more helpful as counselors to their internal clients. This involves teaching
business skills as well as coaching skills in order to prepare them for this new job that is
developing.
Business schools also need to focus on interpersonal communication skills in addition
to the current emphasis on presentation and negotiation skills typically offered in MBA
programs. While public relations professionals might be the ones to plan internal
communication efforts, managers who typically come from business backgrounds will be the
ones implementing those internal communication efforts. Listening and feedback skills can
be taught in both public relations and business curricula.
What should professionals do differently?
In order to be better prepared to navigate the world of internal communications,
public relations professionals need to understand the similarities and differences between
internal and external publics. So much of their job focus is traditionally on external publics,
almost to the detriment of internal publics. If professionals are able to utilize scholarly
research on benefits of implementing internal communication, they will be able to see how it
can benefit their organizations, instead of waiting for an enlightened CEO to make them
aware.
Internal communications executives from this study see their role as more strategic in
nature, helping to coach their internal leaders on effective methods for communicating with
employees with the goal of greater employee engagement. The good news is that companies
are recognizing that internal communication with important employee publics helps to build
employee engagement and is a worthy goal for an organization, in addition to customer
139
engagement. Professionals should also create their own code of ethics in order to help them
achieve employee engagement in an ethical way.
Employees are more committed to managers who spend time with them in face-to-
face communication. The challenge will be for professionals to connect the trust employees
have in their managers to trust in the company, in order to build lasting relationships that
enhance firm reputation and employee well-being. This might be accomplished through a
closer relationship communication executives have with middle managers so that they also
feel connected to the company and can make that connection for lower-level employees.
This could be accomplished through regular training and feedback with middle managers
about the goals and mission of the organization, as well as to solicit their feedback on how
the organization is doing to make progress towards those goals.
Researchers, teachers, and professionals can work together to improve the knowledge
about internal communication by collaborating in research, teaching, mentoring, and strategy
development. This cross-fertilization of knowledge will improve both the processes and
implementation of internal communication.
140
APPENDICES
Appendix A. IRB Application with Appropriate Forms and Documents
141
OFFICE OF HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS
Institutional Review Board
APPLICATION FOR IRB APPROVAL OF
HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH
Version 30-May-2006
Part A.1. Contact Information, Agreements, and Signatures
Title of Study: The use of communication in Relationship management of employees Date: 6-
14-06
Name and degrees of Principal Investigator: Karen Mishra
Department: JOMC Mailing address/CB #: 3365
UNC-CH PID: 710921930 Pager:
Phone #: 843-5866 Fax #: 962-0620 Email Address: [email protected]
For trainee-led projects: __ undergraduate _X graduate __ postdoc __ resident __ other
Name of faculty advisor: Dr. Lois Boynton
Department: JOMC Mailing address/CB #: 3365
Phone #: 843-8342 Fax #: 962-0620 Email Address: [email protected]
Name, phone number, email address of project manager or coordinator, if any:
List all other project personnel including co-investigators, and anyone else who has contact with
subjects or identifiable data from subjects:
Name of funding source or sponsor:
_X_ not funded __ Federal __ State __ industry __ foundation __ UNC-CH
__ other (specify): Sponsor or award number:
Include following items with your submission, where applicable.
• Check the relevant items below and include one copy of all checked items 1-11 in the order listed.
• Also include two additional collated sets of copies (sorted in the order listed) for items 1-7.
? Applications may be returned if these instructions are not followed.
Check Item Total No. of Copies
x
1. This application. One copy must have original PI signatures.
3
x
2. Consent and assent forms, fact or information sheets; include phone and verbal consent
scripts.
3
?
3. HIPAA authorization addendum to consent form.
3
x
4. All recruitment materials including scripts, flyers and advertising, letters, emails.
3
x
5. Questionnaires, focus group guides, scripts used to guide phone or in-person interviews,
etc.
3
?
6. Protocol, grant application or proposal supporting this submission; (e.g., extramural grant
application to NIH or foundation, industry protocol, student proposal).
3
?
7. Documentation of reviews from any other committees (e.g., GCRC, Oncology Protocol
Review Committee, or local review committees in Academic Affairs).
3
For IRB Use
Behav Biomed Nurs PH
IRB Study #
Rec’d
Full Expedited Exempt
142
?
8. Addendum for Multi-Site Studies where UNC-CH is the Lead Coordinating Center.
1
?
9. Data use agreements (may be required for use of existing data from third parties).
1
x
10. Documentation of required training in human research ethics for all study personnel.
1
?
11. Investigator Brochure if a drug study.
1
Principal Investigator: I will personally conduct or supervise this research study. I will
ensure that this study is performed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and
University policies regarding human subjects research. I will obtain IRB approval before
making any changes or additions to the project. I will notify the IRB of any other changes in
the information provided in this application. I will provide progress reports to the IRB at
least annually, or as requested. I will report promptly to the IRB all unanticipated problems
or serious adverse events involving risk to human subjects. I will follow the IRB approved
consent process for all subjects. I will ensure that all collaborators, students and employees
assisting in this research study are informed about these obligations. All information given
in this form is accurate and complete.
Signature of Principal Investigator Date
Faculty Advisor if PI is a Student or Trainee Investigator: I accept ultimate
responsibility for ensuring that this study complies with all the obligations listed above for
the PI.
Signature of Faculty Advisor Date
Department or Division Chair, Center Director (or counterpart) of PI: (or Vice-Chair or
Chair’s designee if Chair is investigator or otherwise unable to review): I certify that this
research is appropriate for this Principal Investigator, that the investigators are qualified to
conduct the research, and that there are adequate resources (including financial, support and
facilities) available. If my unit has a local review committee for pre-IRB review, this
requirement has been satisfied. I support this application, and hereby submit it for further
review.
Signature of Department Chair or designee Date
Print Name of Department Chair or designee Department
143
Part A.2. Summary Checklist
Are the following involved? Yes No
A.2.1. Existing data, research records, patient records, and/or human biological specimens? __ _X_
A.2.2. Surveys, questionnaires, interviews, or focus groups with subjects? _X_ __
A.2.3. Videotaping, audiotaping, filming of subjects (newly collected or existing)? __ __X
A.2.4. Do you plan to enroll subjects from these vulnerable or select populations:
a. UNC-CH students or UNC-CH employees? ...............................................................
b. Non-English-speaking? ...............................................................................................
c. Decisionally impaired? ................................................................................................
d. Patients? ......................................................................................................................
e. Prisoners, others involuntarily detained or incarcerated, or parolees? ........................
f. Pregnant women? ........................................................................................................
g. Minors (less than 18 years)? If yes, give age range: to years ............................
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_X_
_X_
_X_
X__
X_
_X_
_X_
A.2.5. a. Is this a multi-site study (sites outside UNC-CH engaged in the research)?
b. Is UNC-CH the sponsor or lead coordinating center?
If yes, include the Addendum for Multi-site Studies where UNC-CH is the Lead
Coordinating Center.
If yes, will any of these sites be outside the United States?
If yes, provide contact information for the foreign IRB.
__
__
__
X__
X__
_X
A.2.6. Will there be a data and safety monitoring committee (DSMB or DSMC)? __ _X_
A.2.7. a. Are you collecting sensitive information such as sexual behavior, HIV status,
recreational drug use, illegal behaviors, child/physical abuse, immigration status, etc?
b. Do you plan to obtain a federal Certificate of Confidentiality for this study?
__
__
_X_
_X_
A.2.8. a. Investigational drugs? (provide IND # )
b. Approved drugs for “non-FDA-approved” conditions?
All studies testing substances in humans must provide a letter of acknowledgement from
the UNC Health Care Investigational Drug Service (IDS).
__
__
X__
X__
A.2.9. Placebo(s)? __ __X
A.2.10. Investigational devices, instruments, machines, software? (provide IDE # ) __ _X_
A.2.11. Fetal tissue? __ _x_
A.2.12. Genetic studies on subjects’ specimens? __ X__
A.2.13. Storage of subjects’ specimens for future research?
If yes, see instructions for Consent for Stored Samples.
__ X__
A.2.14. Diagnostic or therapeutic ionizing radiation, or radioactive isotopes, which subjects
would not receive otherwise?
If yes, approval by the UNC-CH Radiation Safety Committee is required.
__
X__
A.2.15. Recombinant DNA or gene transfer to human subjects?
If yes, approval by the UNC-CH Institutional Biosafety Committee is required.
__ _X_
A.2.16. Does this study involve UNC-CH cancer patients?
If yes, submit this application directly to the Oncology Protocol Review Committee.
__ _X_
A.2.17. Will subjects be studied in the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC)?
If yes, obtain the GCRC Addendum from the GCRC and submit complete application
(IRB application and Addendum) to the GCRC.
__ __X
144
Part A.3. Conflict of Interest Questions and Certification
The following questions apply to all investigators and study staff engaged in the design, conduct, or
reporting results of this project and/or their immediate family members. For these purposes,
"family" includes the individual’s spouse and dependent children. “Spouse” includes a person with
whom one lives together in the same residence and with whom one shares responsibility for each
other’s welfare and shares financial obligations.
A.3.1. Currently or during the term of this research study, does any member of the
research team or his/her family member have or expect to have:
(a) A personal financial interest in or personal financial relationship (including
gifts of cash or in-kind) with the sponsor of this study?
(b) A personal financial interest in or personal financial relationship (including
gifts of cash or in-kind) with an entity that owns or has the right to
commercialize a product, process or technology studied in this project?
(c) A board membership of any kind or an executive position (paid or unpaid)
with the sponsor of this study or with an entity that owns or has the right to
commercialize a product, process or technology studied in this project?
__ yes
__ yes
__ yes
_X_
no
_X no
X_ no
A.3.2. Has the University or has a University-related foundation received a cash or
in-kind gift from the Sponsor of this study for the use or benefit of any member of
the research team?
__ yes
X_ no
A.3.3. Has the University or has a University-related foundation received a cash or
in-kind gift for the use or benefit of any member of the research team from an entity
that owns or has the right to commercialize a product, process or technology studied
in this project?
__ yes
X_ no
If the answer to ANY of the questions above is yes, the affected research team member(s) must
complete and submit to the Office of the University Counsel the form accessible at http://coi.unc.edu.
List name(s) of all research team members for whom any answer to the questions above is yes:
Certification by Principal Investigator: By submitting this IRB application, I (the PI) certify that
the information provided above is true and accurate regarding my own circumstances, that I have
inquired of every UNC-Chapel Hill employee or trainee who will be engaged in the design, conduct or
reporting of results of this project as to the questions set out above, and that I have instructed any such
person who has answered “yes” to any of these questions to complete and submit for approval a Conflict
of Interest Evaluation Form. I understand that as Principal Investigator I am obligated to ensure that
any potential conflicts of interest that exist in relation to my study are reported as required by University
policy.
Signature of Principal Investigator Date
Faculty Advisor if PI is a Student or Trainee Investigator: I accept ultimate responsibility for
ensuring that the PI complies with the University’s conflict of interest policies and procedures.
Signature of Faculty Advisor Date
145
Part A.4. Questions Common to All Studies
For all questions, if the study involves only secondary data analysis, focus on your proposed design,
methods and procedures, and not those of the original study that produced the data you plan to use.
A.4.1. Brief Summary. Provide a brief non-technical description of the study, which will be used in
IRB documentation as a description of the study. Typical summaries are 50-100 words.
Purpose: The purpose of this study will be to examine the communication methods organizations use
with employees in order to build trusting and loyal relationships.
Participants:
Interviews with: 1) Founder of Wieden & Kennedy; 2) UNC alum who is VP of Corporate
Communications with Wachovia, 3) Regional Manager of Starbucks, and 4) VP of Corporate
Communications at SAS.
Focus Groups: employees of Wieden & Kennedy, Wachovia, SAS and Starbucks
Surveys of employees: Wieden & Kennedy, Wachovia, SAS and Starbucks
Procedures (methods): Interviews of Corporate executives, focus groups of middle-level employees,
surveys of all employees
A.4.2. Purpose and Rationale. Provide a summary of the background information, state the
research question(s), and tell why the study is needed. If a complete rationale and literature review
are in an accompanying grant application or other type of proposal, only provide a brief summary
here. If there is no proposal, provide a more extensive rationale and literature review, including
references.
This dissertation will examine the impact of internal communication in an organization
and its effect on employee trust, commitment and firm reputation. The relationship
management literature (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) traditionally focuses on external
publics to the exclusion of internal publics, such as employees. As a result, employees can
often feel left out of the entire production process, thereby hurting the ultimate relationship
with the customer (Lowenstein, 2006).
“Only 24 percent of employees consider themselves truly loyal, committed to their
organization and its goals” (Lowenstein, 2006). Internal communication between an
organization’s leadership and its employees can be an important method for building critical
relationships that harnesses the enthusiasm, loyalty (Reichheld, 2001) and trust (Mishra &
146
Mishra, 2005) of an organization’s employees. Employees have important knowledge and
skills about both their jobs and the organization, providing employees the opportunity to be
ambassadors to the customer. This type of internal marketing to employees (Schultz,
Tannenbaum, & Lauterborn, 1992) leads them to be better customer ambassadors
(Lowenstein, 2006). In addition, employees are critical stakeholders in terms of corporate
social responsibility (Paine, 2003), and have been overlooked in favor of investors and even
the environment for an organization to be accountable to. It has been demonstrated in the
teams literature that happy employees leads to better service, which leads to happy, loyal
customers (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006). Finally, digital communication is a prevalent
method for developing relationships both internally and externally, as well as facilitating
information search (Rappa, 2006).
This study will incorporate in-depth interviews with executives from Starbucks, Wieden
& Kennedy, Wachovia, and SAS as well as focus groups with employees about their
perceptions of the importance of the link between internal and external communication.
Finally, a survey of both employees and customers will examine the role that internal
communication plays in employee trust and commitment.
A.4.3. Subjects. You should describe the subject population even if your study does not involve
direct interaction (e.g., existing records). Specify number, gender, ethnicity, race, and age. Specify
whether subjects are healthy volunteers or patients. If patients, specify any relevant disease or
condition and indicate how potential subjects will be identified.
There will be 4 interviews; 8 focus groups of 10 employees each (2 at each company) and surveys of
approximately 500 employees from Wieden & Kennedy, Wachovia, Starbucks, and SAS.
A.4.4. Inclusion/exclusion criteria. List required characteristics of potential subjects, and those that
preclude enrollment or involvement of subjects or their data. Justify exclusion of any group,
especially by criteria based on gender, ethnicity, race, or age. If pregnant women are excluded, or if
women who become pregnant are withdrawn, specific justification must be provided.
There are no exclusion criteria. All employees are eligible to participate.
147
A.4.5. Full description of the study design, methods and procedures. Describe the research
study. Discuss the study design; study procedures; sequential description of what subjects will be
asked to do; assignment of subjects to various arms of the study if applicable; doses; frequency and
route of administration of medication and other medical treatment if applicable; how data are to be
collected (questionnaire, interview, focus group or specific procedure such as physical examination,
venipuncture, etc.). Include information on who will collect data, who will conduct procedures or
measurements. Indicate the number and duration of contacts with each subject; outcome
measurements; and follow-up procedures. If the study involves medical treatment, distinguish
standard care procedures from those that are research. If the study is a clinical trial involving patients
as subjects and use of placebo control is involved, provide justification for the use of placebo
controls.
The study will begin with in-depth interviews of the four individuals mentioned. Interview questions
are in appendix D. Two focus groups will be conducted at each company. Focus group questions
are in appendix E. Finally, surveys will be conducted of approximately 500 employees. The e-
survey questions are listed in appendix F.
A.4.6. Benefits to subjects and/or society. Describe any potential for direct benefit to individual
subjects, as well as the benefit to society based on scientific knowledge to be gained; these should be
clearly distinguished. Consider the nature, magnitude, and likelihood of any direct benefit to
subjects. If there is no direct benefit to the individual subject, say so here and in the consent form (if
there is a consent form). Do not list monetary payment or other compensation as a benefit.
There are no known benefits nor risks to the individuals involved. The benefits will accrue to the
academic community who are trying to better understand this issue.
A.4.7. Full description of risks and measures to minimize risks. Include risk of psychosocial
harm (e.g., emotional distress, embarrassment, breach of confidentiality), economic harm (e.g., loss of
employment or insurability, loss of professional standing or reputation, loss of standing within the
community) and legal jeopardy (e.g., disclosure of illegal activity or negligence), as well as known
side effects of study medication, if applicable, and risk of pain and physical injury. Describe what
will be done to minimize these risks. Describe procedures for follow-up, when necessary, such as
when subjects are found to be in need of medical or psychological referral. If there is no direct
interaction with subjects, and risk is limited to breach of confidentiality (e.g., for existing data), state
this.
Employee participants will be asked to participate on a voluntary basis. All interviewees have
consented to participate. Focus group participants will be drawn from volunteers.
A.4.8. Data analysis. Tell how the qualitative and/or quantitative data will be analyzed. Explain
how the sample size is sufficient to achieve the study aims. This might include a formal power
calculation or explanation of why a small sample is sufficient (e.g., qualitative research, pilot studies).
The interview and focus group data will be analyzed using qualitative analysis for themes and/or
trends. The survey will be analyzed using SPSS.
A.4.9. Will you collect or receive any of the following identifiers? Does not apply to consent
forms.
148
__ No _X_ Yes If yes, check all that apply:
a. _X_Names
b. _X Telephone numbers
c. __ Any elements of dates (other than year) for dates directly related to an individual, including
birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death. For ages over 89: all elements of dates
(including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated
into a single category of age 90 and older
d. __ Any geographic subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city, county,
precinct, zip code and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code
e. __ Fax numbers
f. _X Electronic mail addresses
g. __ Social security numbers
h. __ Medical record numbers
i. __ Health plan beneficiary numbers
j. __ Account numbers
k. __ Certificate/license numbers
l. __ Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers (VIN), including license plate numbers
m. __ Device identifiers and serial numbers (e.g., implanted medical device)
n. __ Web universal resource locators (URLs)
o. __ Internet protocol (IP) address numbers
p. __ Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints
q. __ Full face photographic images and any comparable images
r. __ Any other unique identifying number, characteristic or code, other than dummy identifiers
that are not derived from actual identifiers and for which the re-identification key is maintained
by the health care provider and not disclosed to the researcher
A.4.10. Confidentiality of the data. Describe procedures for maintaining confidentiality of the data
you will collect or will receive. Describe how you will protect the data from access by those not
authorized. How will data be transmitted among research personnel? Where relevant, discuss the
potential for deductive disclosure (i.e., directly identifying subjects from a combination of indirect
IDs).
Data will be kept confidential because it will require password protection for access to it on my
personal laptop.
A.4.11. Data sharing. With whom will identifiable (contains any of the 18 identifiers listed in
question A.4.9 above) data be shared outside the immediate research team? For each, explain
confidentiality measures. Include data use agreements, if any.
__ No one
__ Coordinating Center:
__ Statisticians:
__ Consultants:
__ Other researchers:
__ Registries:
__ Sponsors:
__ External labs for additional testing:
__ Journals:
149
__ Publicly available dataset:
_X_ Other: My dissertation chair, Dr. Lois Boynton
A.4.12. Data security for storage and transmission. Please check all that apply.
For electronic data:
_X_ Secure network _X_ Password access __ Encryption
__ Other (describe):
__ Portable storage (e.g., laptop computer, flash drive)
Describe how data will be protected for any portable device:
For hardcopy data (including human biological specimens, CDs, tapes, etc.):
__ Data de-identified by research team (stripped of the 18 identifiers listed in question 7 above)
_X_ Locked suite or office
__ Locked cabinet
__ Data coded by research team with a master list secured and kept separately
__ Other (describe):
A.4.13. Post-study disposition of identifiable data or human biological materials. Describe your
plans for disposition of data or human biological specimens that are identifiable in any way (directly
or via indirect codes) once the study has ended. Describe your plan to destroy identifiers, if you will
do so.
Data will be kept locked up for five years.
Part A.5. The Consent Process and Consent Documentation (including
Waivers)
The standard consent process is for all subjects to sign a document containing all the elements of
informed consent, as specified in the federal regulations. Some or all of the elements of consent,
including signatures, may be altered or waived under certain circumstances.
• If you will obtain consent in any manner, complete section A.5.1.
• If you are obtaining consent, but requesting a waiver of the requirement for a signed consent
document, complete section A.5.2.
• If you are requesting a waiver of any or all of the elements of consent, complete section A.5.3.
You may need to complete more than one section. For example, if you are conducting a phone
survey with verbal consent, complete sections A.5.1, A.5.2, and possibly A.5.3.
A.5.1. Describe the process of obtaining informed consent from subjects. If children will be
enrolled as subjects, describe the provisions for obtaining parental permission and assent of the child.
If decisionally impaired adults are to be enrolled, describe the provision for obtaining surrogate
consent from a legally authorized representative (LAR). If non-English speaking people will be
enrolled, explain how consent in the native language will be obtained. Address both written
translation of the consent and the availability of oral interpretation. After you have completed this
part A.5.1, if you are not requesting a waiver of any type, you are done with Part A.5.; proceed to
Part B.
150
Consent will be obtained from interviewees prior to conducting the interviews. See Consent Form A.
Consent will be obtained from focus group participants at the start of the focus group session. See
Consent Form B.
Implied consent will be obtained from the survey participants as they begin the survey process. They
will be informed that the survey is voluntary and that they may quit at any time. See Consent Form
C.
A.5.2. Justification for a waiver of written (i.e., signed) consent. The default is for subjects to sign
a written document that contains all the elements of informed consent. Under limited circumstances,
the requirement for a signed consent form may be waived by the IRB if either of the following is true:
a. The only record linking the subject and the research would be the consent
document and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach
of confidentiality (e.g., study involves sensitive data that could be damaging if
disclosed).
Explain.
b. The research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and
involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of
the research context (e.g., phone survey).
Explain.
If you checked “yes” to either, will consent be oral? Will you give out a fact
sheet? Use an online consent form, or include information as part of the survey
itself, etc?
__ yes __ no
__ yes __ no
? If you have justified a waiver of written (signed) consent (A.5.2), you should complete A.5.3
only if your consent process will not include all the other elements of consent.
A.5.3. Justification for a full or partial waiver of consent. The default is for subjects to give
informed consent. A waiver might be requested for research involving only existing data or human
biological specimens (see also Part C). More rarely, it might be requested when the research design
requires withholding some study details at the outset (e.g., behavioral research involving deception).
In limited circumstances, parental permission may be waived. This section should also be completed
for a waiver of HIPAA authorization if research involves Protected Health Information (PHI) subject
to HIPAA regulation, such as patient records.
__ Requesting waiver of some elements (specify; see SOP 28 on the IRB web site):
__ Requesting waiver of consent entirely
If you check either of the boxes above, answer items a-f.. To justify a full waiver of the
requirement for informed consent, you must be able to answer “yes” (or “not applicable” for
question c) to items a-f. Insert brief explanations that support your answers.
a. Will the research involve no greater than minimal risk to subjects or to their
privacy?
Explain.
__ yes __ no
b. Is it true that the waiver will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of
subjects? (Consider the right of privacy and possible risk of breach of
__ yes __ no
151
confidentiality in light of the information you wish to gather.)
Explain.
c. When applicable to your study, do you have plans to provide subjects with
pertinent information after their participation is over? (e.g., Will you provide
details withheld during consent, or tell subjects if you found information with
direct clinical relevance? This may be an uncommon scenario.)
Explain.
__ yes __ not
applicable
d. Would the research be impracticable without the waiver? (If you checked
“yes,” explain how the requirement to obtain consent would make the research
impracticable, e.g., are most of the subjects lost to follow-up or deceased?).
Explain.
__ yes __ no
e. Is the risk to privacy reasonable in relation to benefits to be gained or the
importance of the knowledge to be gained?
Explain.
__ yes __ no
If you are accessing patient records for this research, you must also be able to answer “yes” to
item f to justify a waiver of HIPAA authorization from the subjects.
f. Would the research be impracticable if you could not record (or use) Protected
Health Information (PHI)? (If you checked “yes,” explain how not recording or
using PHI would make the research impracticable).
Explain.
__ yes __ no
Part B. Questions for Studies that Involve Direct Interaction with Human
Subjects
? If this does not apply to your study, do not submit this section.
B.1. Methods of recruiting. Describe how and where subjects will be identified and recruited.
Indicate who will do the recruiting, and tell how subjects will be contacted. Describe efforts to ensure
equal access to participation among women and minorities. Describe how you will protect the
privacy of potential subjects during recruitment. For prospective subjects whose status (e.g., as
patient or client), condition, or contact information is not publicly available (e.g., from a phone book
or public web site), the initial contact should be made with legitimate knowledge of the subjects’
circumstances. Ideally, the individual with such knowledge should seek prospective subjects’
permission to release names to the PI for recruitment. Alternatively, the knowledgeable individual
could provide information about the study, including contact information for the investigator, so that
interested prospective subjects can contact the investigator. Provide the IRB with a copy of any
document or script that will be used to obtain the patients’ permission for release of names or to
introduce the study. Check with your IRB for further guidance.
All participants will be recruited via email. Interviewees will receive a personal note of invitation to
participate (Form G). Focus group and survey participants will see an invitation to participate via
their company intranets or through email (Forms H & I).
152
B.2. Protected Health Information (PHI). If you need to access Protected Health Information
(PHI) to identify potential subjects who will then be contacted, you will need a limited waiver of
HIPAA authorization. If this applies to your study, please provide the following information.
a. Will the information collected be limited only to that necessary to contact the subjects to ask if
they are interested in participating in the study?
b. How will confidentiality/privacy be protected prior to ascertaining desire to participate?
c. When and how will you destroy the contact information if an individual declines participation?
B.3. Duration of entire study and duration of an individual subject’s participation, including
follow-up evaluation if applicable. Include the number of required contacts and approximate
duration of each contact.
The duration of the study will be from July 1, 2006 until May 1, 2007.
Interviewees will be contacted once for an invitation, once to set up a mutually convenient time to
talk, and once to be thanked for their participation.
Focus group participants will be contacted once via their company intranets to ask for their voluntary
participation. They will then be contacted via email once more to instruct them on the time for
the focus group. Finally, they will be contacted with thanks for their participation.
Survey participants will be contacted once via their company intranets to ask for their voluntary
participation. They will then be contacted via email once more with instructions on how to
complete the on-line survey.
B.4. Where will the subjects be studied? Describe locations where subjects will be studied, both
on and off the UNC-CH campus.
The interviewees and focus group participants will be studied in Portland, Oregon, Charlotte, NC,
RTP, NC, and Durham, NC. The employees may complete the surveys online from their offices
or from their home.
B.5. Privacy. Describe procedures that will ensure privacy of the subjects in this study. Examples
include the setting for interviews, phone conversations, or physical examinations; communication
methods or mailed materials (e.g., mailings should not indicate disease status or focus of study on the
envelope).
Interviews will be conducted in the privacy of their offices or via telephone.
B.6. Inducements for participation. Describe all inducements to participate, monetary or non-
monetary. If monetary, specify the amount and schedule for payments and how this will be prorated
if the subject withdraws (or is withdrawn) from the study prior to completing it. For compensation in
foreign currency, provide a US$ equivalent. Provide evidence that the amount is not coercive (e.g.,
describe purchasing power for foreign countries). Include food or refreshments that may be provided.
153
There are no inducements for participation with the interviewees. There will be cookies and bottled
water provided for the focus group participants. There are no inducements for the employees to
participate in the survey.
B.7. Costs to be borne by subjects. Include child care, travel, parking, clinic fees, diagnostic and
laboratory studies, drugs, devices, all professional fees, etc. If there are no costs to subjects other
than their time to participate, indicate this.
There are no costs to be borne by the participants, except for their time.
154
IRB Appendices
Appendix A: IRB Approval Form
Appendix B: Consent form for executive interviewees to participate in interviews
Appendix C: Consent form for employee interviewees to participate in interviews
Appendix D: Implied consent for e-survey
Appendix E: Executive interview questions
Appendix F: Employee interview questions
Appendix G: e-survey
Appendix H: Recruitment message for executive interviewees
Appendix I: Recruitment message for employee interviews
Appendix J: Recruitment message for survey participants
155
Appendix A. IRB Approval Form
156
157
Appendix B. Consent form for executive interviewees to participate in interviews
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Consent to Participate in a Research Study
Adult Participants
Social Behavioral Form
________________________________________________________________________
IRB Study #_____________________
Consent Form Version Date: ______________
Title of Study: The use of communication in relationship management of employees
Principal Investigator: Karen E. Mishra
UNC-Chapel Hill Department: School of Journalism and Mass Communication
UNC-Chapel Hill Phone number: 919-843-5866
Email Address: [email protected]
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Lois Boynton
Funding Source: n/a
Study Contact telephone number: 919-843-5866 or 919-619-0277
Study Contact email: [email protected]
_________________________________________________________________
What are some general things you should know about research studies?
You are being asked to take part in a research study. To join the study is voluntary.
You may refuse to join, or you may withdraw your consent to be in the study, for any reason, without penalty.
Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new information may help people in the future.
You may not receive any direct benefit from being in the research study. There also may be risks to being in
research studies.
Details about this study are discussed below. It is important that you understand this information so that you
can make an informed choice about being in this research study.
You will be given a copy of this consent form. You should ask the researchers named above, or staff members
who may assist them, any questions you have about this study at any time.
What is the purpose of this study?
The purpose of this research study is to learn about how organizations communicate with employees about its
vision and mission. This study is also interested in how organizations perceive employees as a distinct “public”
or stakeholder.
You are being asked to be in the study because you are recognized as an influential communications executive
in your community/industry and will be able to provide valuable insights as to the development and dispersion
of employee communication.
Are there any reasons you should not be in this study?
You should not be in this study if you prefer your work to remain confidential.
How many people will take part in this study?
If you decide to be in this study, you will be one of approximately 4 people in this research study.
How long will your part in this study last?
This study is expected to last approximately one hour. You will be asked to participate in one extended
interview, with follow-up questions asked via email.
158
What will happen if you take part in the study?
• If you participate in this study, I will first ask to arrange a time convenient to you to schedule an interview,
either in-person or by phone.
• Then, I will email follow-up questions as they arise, after we have completed the initial interview.
• The process will be completed by the end of April, 2007.
What are the possible benefits from being in this study?
Research is designed to benefit society by gaining new knowledge. You may also expect to benefit by obtaining
a copy of my paper, if you are interested in the results of my findings.
What are the possible risks or discomforts involved from being in this study?
There are no known risks to this study, unless you are uncomfortable talking about yourself and your work.
There may be uncommon or previously unknown risks. You should report any problems to the researcher.
How will your privacy be protected?
Privacy and confidentiality will be protected, if you wish. I would recommend using a pseudonym and
nonspecific title in order to protect your identity. I will be the only person to have specific access to your
interview comments. They will be locked in my office, and password protected on my computer.
Participants will be identified by pseudonym in any report or publication about this study. Although every effort
will be made to keep research records private, there may be times when federal or state law requires the
disclosure of such records, including personal information. This is very unlikely, but if disclosure is ever
required, UNC-Chapel Hill will take steps allowable by law to protect the privacy of personal information. In
some cases, your information in this research study could be reviewed by representatives of the University,
research sponsors, or government agencies for purposes such as quality control or safety.
Will you receive anything for being in this study?
You will not receive anything for taking part in this study.
Will it cost you anything to be in this study?
There will be no costs for being in the study, other than your time.
What if you are a UNC student?
You may choose not to be in the study or to stop being in the study before it is over at any time. This will not
affect your class standing or grades at UNC-Chapel Hill. You will not be offered or receive any special
consideration if you take part in this research.
What if you are a UNC employee?
Taking part in this research is not a part of your University duties, and refusing will not affect your job. You
will not be offered or receive any special job-related consideration if you take part in this research.
What if you have questions about this study?
You have the right to ask, and have answered, any questions you may have about this research. If you have
questions, or concerns, you should contact the researchers listed on the first page of this form.
What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?
All research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee that works to protect your
rights and welfare. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research
participant you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Behavioral Institutional Review
Board at 919-962-7761 or [email protected].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Participant’s Agreement:
I have read the information provided above. I have asked all the questions I have at this time. I voluntarily
159
agree to participate in this research study.
_________________________________________ _________________
Signature of Research Participant Date
_________________________________________
Printed Name of Research Participant
_________________________________________ _________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
_________________________________________
Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent
160
Appendix C. Consent form for employee interviewees
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Consent to Participate in a Research Study
Adult Participants
Social Behavioral Form
________________________________________________________________________
IRB Study #JOMC _______
Title of Study: The use of communication in relationship management of employees
Principal Investigator: Karen E. Mishra
UNC-Chapel Hill Department: School of Journalism and Mass Communication
UNC-Chapel Hill Phone number: 919-843-5866
Email Address: [email protected]
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Lois Boynton
Funding Source: n/a
Study Contact telephone number: 919-843-5866 or 919-619-0277
Study Contact email: [email protected]
_________________________________________________________________
What are some general things you should know about research studies?
You are being asked to take part in a research study. To join the study is voluntary.
You may refuse to join, or you may withdraw your consent to be in the study, for any reason, without penalty.
Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new information may help professional and
academic researchers in the future. You may not receive any direct benefit from being in the research study.
There also may be risks to being in research studies.
Details about this study are discussed below. It is important that you understand this information so that you
can make an informed choice about being in this research study. You will be given a copy of this consent form.
You should ask the researchers named above any questions you have about this study at any time.
What is the purpose of this study?
The purpose of this research study is to learn about how organizations communicate with employees about its
vision and mission. This study is also interested in how organizations perceive employees as a distinct “public”
or stakeholder.
You are being asked to be in the study because you are recognized as an influential communications manager in
your community/industry and will be able to provide valuable insights as to the development and dispersion of
employee communication.
Are there any reasons you should not be in this study?
You should not be in this study if you prefer your work to remain confidential.
How many people will take part in this study?
If you decide to be in this study, you will be one of approximately 4 people participating in a series of interviews in this
research study.
How long will your part in this study last?
This study is expected to last approximately 90 minutes. You will be asked to participate in one interview
session, with follow-up questions asked via e-mail.
161
What will happen if you take part in the study?
• If you participate in this study, I will first ask to arrange a time convenient to you to schedule the focus
group.
• Then, the interview will be scheduled and held at a date convenient to you.
• After the interview, I will email follow-up questions as they arise.
• The process will be completed by the end of March, 2007.
• Your participation on any question is voluntary. You may skip any question you choose not to answer and
you may also withdraw from participating at any time. The questions include:
1. Tell me about your background and work experience.
2. What is your current role in this organization?
3. How would you rate your company on the job it does communicating with you?
4. How would you rate the job your company does communicating to customers?
5. Are there different messages for employees than customers?
6. How do you think employees are treated in your company?
7. How does your company tell you about new products and services? About layoffs?
8. Where do you get good news from? Bad news?
What are the possible benefits from being in this study?
Research is designed to benefit society by gaining new knowledge. You may also expect to benefit by
participating in this study by obtaining a copy of my paper, if you are interested in the results of my findings.
What are the possible risks or discomforts involved from being in this study?
There are no known risks to this study, unless you are uncomfortable talking about yourself and your work.
There may be uncommon or previously unknown risks. You should report any problems to the researcher. I
will ask that all comments made during the focus group session be kept confidential.
How will your privacy be protected?
Privacy and confidentiality will be protected, if you wish, using a pseudonym. I will be the only person to have
specific access to your interview comments. They will be locked in my office, and password protected on my
computer.
Although every effort will be made to keep research records private, there may be times when federal or state
law requires the disclosure of such records, including personal information. This is very unlikely, but if
disclosure is ever required, UNC-Chapel Hill will take steps allowable by law to protect the privacy of personal
information. In some cases, your information in this research study could be reviewed by representatives of the
University, research sponsors, or government agencies for purposes such as quality control or safety.
Will you receive anything for being in this study?
You will not receive anything for taking part in this study.
Will it cost you anything to be in this study?
There will be no costs for being in the study, other than your time.
What if you have questions about this study?
You have the right to ask, and have answered, any questions you may have about this research. If you have
questions, or concerns, you should contact the researchers listed on the first page of this form.
162
What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?
All research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee that works to protect your
rights and welfare. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research
participant you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Behavioral Institutional Review
Board at 919-962-7761 or [email protected].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Participant’s Agreement:
I have read the information provided above. I have asked all the questions I have at this time. I voluntarily
agree to participate in this research study.
_________________________________________ _________________
Signature of Research Participant Date
_________________________________________ _________________ ____________
Printed Name of Research Participant email address mailing address
If you want a copy
_________________________________________ _________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
_________________________________________
Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent
163
Appendix D. Implied Consent for e-survey
By participating in this on-line survey, you agree to participate in a study being conducted by a
doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Your participation is
voluntary and you may quit at any time. All precautions have been taken so that there are no
risks to your participation, unless you feel uncomfortable answering questions about the
organization you work for and your job. If you have any questions about this study, you may
contact the principal investigator, Karen Mishra at [email protected] or 619-0277 or the
Institutional Review Board at 919-962-7761 or [email protected].
What are some general things you should know about research studies?
You are being asked to take part in a research study. To join the study is voluntary.
You may refuse to join, or you may withdraw your consent to be in the study, for any reason, without penalty.
Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new information may help professional and
academic researchers in the future. You may not receive any direct benefit from being in the research study.
There also may be risks to being in research studies.
Details about this study are discussed below. It is important that you understand this information so that you
can make an informed choice about being in this research study. You will be given a copy of this consent form.
You should ask the researchers named above any questions you have about this study at any time.
What is the purpose of this study?
The purpose of this research study is to learn about how organizations communicate with employees about its
vision and mission. This study is also interested in how organizations perceive employees as a distinct “public”
or stakeholder.
Are there any reasons you should not be in this study?
You should not be in this study if you prefer your opinions about your workplace to remain confidential.
How many people will take part in this study?
If you decide to be in this study, you will be one of approximately 500 people participating in this survey in this research
study.
How long will your part in this study last?
This study is expected to last approximately 15 minutes. You will be asked to participate in one survey session.
What are the possible benefits from being in this study?
Research is designed to benefit society by gaining new knowledge. You may also expect to benefit by
participating in this study by obtaining a copy of my paper, if you are interested in the results of my findings.
What are the possible risks or discomforts involved from being in this study?
There are no known risks to this study, unless you are uncomfortable talking about yourself and your work.
There may be uncommon or previously unknown risks. You should report any problems to the researcher.
How will your privacy be protected?
Privacy and confidentiality will be protected, as your name will not be asked, only demographic information. I
will be the only person to have specific access to your interview comments. They will be locked in my office,
and password protected on my computer.
Although every effort will be made to keep research records private, there may be times when federal or state
law requires the disclosure of such records, including personal information. This is very unlikely, but if
disclosure is ever required, UNC-Chapel Hill will take steps allowable by law to protect the privacy of personal
164
information. In some cases, your information in this research study could be reviewed by representatives of the
University, research sponsors, or government agencies for purposes such as quality control or safety.
Will you receive anything for being in this study?
You will not receive anything for taking part in this study.
Will it cost you anything to be in this study?
There will be no costs for being in the study, other than your time.
What if you have questions about this study?
You have the right to ask, and have answered, any questions you may have about this research. If you have
questions, or concerns, you should contact the researchers listed on the first page of this form.
What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?
All research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee that works to protect your
rights and welfare. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research
participant you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Behavioral Institutional Review
Board at 919-962-7761 or [email protected].
165
Appendix E. Executive Interview Questions
(with probing questions)
1. Tell me about your background and work experience.
2. What is your current role in this company?
Probes:
o What department do you work in?
o How many people do you manage?
o What other departments do you interact with on a daily basis?
o Who do you report to?
3. How do you define corporate communication?
Probes:
o What is that definition based upon?
o What is your experience with corporate communication?
o Who is responsible for corporate communication at your company?
4. What role does corporate communication play in your company?
Probes:
o Where is the focal point of the company’s efforts?
o Is it focused on customers?
o Is it focused on employees?
o Is it focused on investors?
o Is it focused on prospective customers?
o Is it focused on new product introductions? Brand image?
5. What role do employees play in corporate communication?
Probes:
o Are employees included in the corporate communication efforts?
o Do employees help craft the message to customers?
o Are employees aware of the message in order to help deliver the message?
6. How would you describe the internal employee relations in your organization?
Probes:
o Do you have a union in your company? Why or why not?
o Do you have much turnover here? Why or why not?
o What is the turnover rate here in a given year?
o What do you attribute that rate to?
7. What is your definition of effective communication or what makes communication with
employees effective?
8. What methods are most effective for management to communicate with employees?
Probes: Face-to-face; email; memos
166
9. Whose role is it to ensure that there is effective communications between the organization
and employees?
Probes:
o Each manager
o Human resources
o Public relations
10. What is the difference between internal and external communications for your firm?
Probes:
o Do you have separate staffs?
o Do you have separate managers?
o Do these groups work together in crafting the messages?
11. How does your perception of effective communication impact your perception of your
company?
Probes:
• Employees who are efficient?
• Loyal employees?
• Good retention rate?
• Good customer relationships?
• Positive reputation for the firm?
167
Appendix F. Employee Interview Questions
1. Tell me about your background and work experience.
2. What is your current role in this organization?
Probe: How long have your worked here?
3. How would you rate your company on the job it does communicating with you?
Probes:
• Reason for your rating
• Do they tell you things?
• Do they ask you things?
• How often?
• What kind of information does the company provide?
• How trustworthy is your company?
4. How would you rate the job your company does communicating to customers?
Probes:
• Reason for your rating
• Do they tell them things?
• Do they ask them things?
• How often?
• What kind of information does the company provide?
• How trustworthy is your company?
5. Are there different messages for employees than customers?
Probe:
• How do the messages compare?
6. How do you think employees are treated in your company?
Probe:
• How do you think you are treated?
• How happy are most employees?
7. How does your company tell you about new products and services? About layoffs?
Probe: what are the differences in how the company delivers good or bad news?
8. Where do you get good news from? Bad news?
Probe:
• How does the grapevine work?
• What sources do you trust for good or bad news?
168
Appendix G. e-Survey of Communication Strategies with Employees as Publics
When your company communicates to you about new products,
services, or initiatives…
1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree
1. My manager uses face-to-face communication.
2. My manager uses the telephone to communicate.
3. My manager uses email to communicate.
In general, how much do you agree or disagree with these
statements:
4. My manager understands customers needs well.
5. My manager understands employees needs well.
6. My manager cooperates with us to help do the job well.
7. My manager provides valuable feedback.
8. My manager makes recommendations for continuous improvement on
an ongoing basis.
To what extent would you characterize face-to-face communication
as having the ability to:
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
9. Give and receive timely feedback
10. Provide non-verbal feedback (facial gestures, posture, etc.)
11. Provide immediate feedback
12. Convey multiple types of information (verbal and nonverbal)
To what extent would you characterize written communication
(such as memos or letters) as having the ability to:
13. Give and receive timely feedback
14. Provide non-verbal feedback
15. Provide immediate feedback
16. Convey multiple types of information (verbal and nonverbal)
To what extent would you characterize electronic communication
(such as email or intranets) as having the ability to:
17. Give and receive timely feedback
18. Provide non-verbal feedback
19. Provide immediate feedback
20. Convey multiple types of information (verbal and nonverbal)
Control Mutuality
To what extent to you agree with these statements?
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
21. This company and people like me are attentive to what each other say.
22. This company believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate.
23. In dealing with people like me, this company has a tendency to throw its
weight around.
169
24. This company really listens to what people like me have to say.
25. The management of this company gives people like me enough say in
the decision-making process.
26. When I have an opportunity to interact with the management of this
company, I feel that I have some sense of control over the situation.
27. This company won’t cooperate with people like me.
28. I believe people like me have influence on the decision-makers of this
company.
Communal Relationships
29. This company does not especially enjoy giving others aid.
30. This company is very concerned about the welfare of people like me.
31. I feel that this company takes advantage of people who are vulnerable.
32. I think that this company succeeds by stepping on other people.
33. This company helps people like me without expecting anything in
return.
34. I don’t consider this to be a particularly helpful company for me.
35. I feel that this company tries to get the upper hand.
Exchange Relationships
36. Whenever this company gives or offers something to people like me, it
generally expects something in return.
37. Even though people like me have had a relationship with this company
for a long time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us
a favor.
38. This company will compromise with people like me when it knows that
it will gain something.
39. This company takes care of people who are likely to reward the
organization.
Trust
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
40. This company treats people like me fairly and justly.
41. Whenever this company makes an important decision, I know it will be
concerned about people like me.
42. This company can be relied on to keep its promises
43. I believe that this company takes the opinions of people like me into
account when making decisions.
44. I feel very confident about this company’s expertise.
170
45. This company has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.
46. Sound principles seem to guide this company’s behavior.
47. This company does not mislead people like me.
48. I am very willing to let this company make decisions for people like me.
49. I think it is important to watch this company closely so that it does not
take advantage of people like me.
50. This company is known to be successful at the things it tries to do.
Trust
51. My manager is straightforward with me
52. My manager is competent and knowledgeable
53. My manager does not try to get out of his/her commitments
54. My manager does not take advantage of me
55. My manager communicates honestly with me
56. My manager can contribute to my company’s success
57. My manager behaves consistently
58. My manager does not exploit me
59. My manager does not mislead me in his/her communications
60. My manager can help my company survive during the next decade
61. My manager is reliable
62. My manager cares about my best interests
63. My manager does not withhold important information from me
64. My manager is concerned for my welfare
65. My manager can be counted on
66. My manager can help solve important problems faced by my company
171
67. My manager can be trusted
68. If I had my way, I wouldn't let my company have any influence over
issues that are important to me.
69. I would be willing to let my company have complete control over my
future in this company.
70. I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on my company.
71. I would be comfortable giving my company a task or problem which
was critical to me, even if I could not monitor his/her (its) actions.
72. If someone questioned my company's motives, I would give my
company the benefit of the doubt.
Commitment
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
73. I feel that this company is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to
people like me.
74. I can see that this company wants to maintain a relationship with people
like me
75. There is a long-lasting bond between this company and people like me
76. Compared to other companies I have worked for, I value my
relationship with this company more
77. I would rather work together with this company than not
78. I have no desire to have a relationship with this company.
79. I feel a sense of loyalty to this company.
80. I could not care less about this organization.
Affective Commitment
81. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this company
82. I enjoy discussing my company with people outside it
83. I really feel as if this company’s problems are my own
84. I think I could easily become as attached to another
company as I am to this one
85. I do not feel like “part of the family” at this company
86. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this company
172
87. This company has a great deal of personal meaning for me
88. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this company
Continuance Commitment
89. It would be very hard for me to leave this company right now, even if I
wanted to
90. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted
to leave my company now
91. It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave this company in the near future
92. Right now, staying with this company is a matter of necessity as much
as desire
93. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this company
94. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this company would
be the lack of available alternatives
95. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having
another one lined up
96. One of the major reasons I continue to work for my company is that
another company may not match the overall benefits I have here
Normative Commitment
97. If I had not already put so much of myself into this company, I might
consider working elsewhere
98. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer
99. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave
this company right now
100. I would feel guilty if I left my company right now
101. This company deserves my loyalty
102. I would not leave my company right now because I have a sense of
obligation to the people in it
103. I owe a great deal to this company
Describe your agreement with this statement:
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
104. My company has an outstanding reputation.
105. If you are getting bad news from your manager, do you prefer
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
173
• Email communication
106. If you are getting good news from your manager, do you prefer
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
107. If you are giving bad news to your employees, do you prefer using
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
108. If you are giving good news to your employees, do you prefer using
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
109. What is your age?
110. What is your gender?
111. What is your ethnicity?
112. What is your level of education?
113. What is your job at this company? Job Title?
114. How many people are under your direct supervision?
115. How long have you worked at this company?
116. How much longer do you expect to work at this company?
174
Appendix H: Recruitment message for executive interviewees
My name is Karen Mishra and I’m a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. I’m writing my dissertation on employee communication and I would like to
interview you about your firm’s employee communication and what your philosophy is about
employee communication.
The interview would take no more than one hour and I’m happy to schedule it at your
convenience, either in-person or on the phone. I’m also happy to send you the list of
questions ahead of time in order for you to know exactly what this study entails. I’m hoping
that you’ll have time early this fall to participate in the interview.
If you are interested in participating, please contact me at [email protected] or 919-619-
0277.
Thank you.
Karen Mishra
Roy H. Park Fellow
UNC
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
[email protected]
175
Appendix I: Recruitment message for employee interviews
My name is Karen Mishra and I’m a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. I’m writing my dissertation on employee communication and I would like to
invite you to participate in an interview about how your firm handles employee
communication and what your philosophy is about employee communication.
The interview would take no more than one hour. I’m also happy to send you the list of
questions ahead of time in order for you to know exactly what this study entails. I’m hoping
that you’ll have time early this fall to participate in this interview. The date for your
interview is __________________.
If you are interested in participating, please contact me at [email protected] or 919-619-
0277.
Thank you.
Karen Mishra
Roy H. Park Fellow
UNC
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
[email protected]
176
Appendix J: Recruitment message for survey participants
My name is Karen Mishra and I’m a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. I’m writing my dissertation on employee communication and I would like to
invite you to participate in a survey about how your firm handles employee communication.
The survey would take no more than 15 minutes to complete and can be completed on-line,
as your leisure. I’m hoping that you’ll have time in one month to participate in the survey.
The survey will be ready for you to take the first week of December.
If you are interested in participating, please contact me at [email protected] or 919-619-
0277 and send me your email address. I will keep this information confidential and will only
use it to send you the link for the survey.
Thank you.
Karen Mishra
Roy H. Park Fellow
UNC
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
[email protected]
177
Appendix B. Analytical Memo
May 1, 2006
1. If the SB employees I meet are so happy, what causes this? I’m interested because it is
one of the things that bring me back to Starbucks.
• Is it the type of communication do they use on a daily basis with their manager?
This began in a company that has happy employees, so I figured that the
managers and/or company must be doing well in order for the employees to be so
happy and to keep their jobs for so long.
• Is it a nice boss?
• Do they feel involved in the mission of the organization?
2. I found that these employees are happier when they have good relationships with their
manager, which includes good communication.
• Communication means being able to talk
• Communication also means their boss is a good listener
3. Employees talk more about interpersonal communication being the critical link as opposed
to a formal communications plan.
4. I need to ask the Executives I interview how they feel about communication skills and
whether they feel that specific efforts to improve communication between employees and
managers make an important difference to the company’s mission.
178
5. Maybe the flow of a model looks like this:
6. The employee concepts of talking, feedback and open-minded manager all fit under the
heading of “good communication.” The concepts of people and customer impact all have to
do with happy employees and reputation.
7. Executives don’t seem to use the same words as employees. They talk about the
communication tools they have to use to have a dialogue with key audiences, such as face-to-
face communication or owning all other communication channels. This could also fit under
good communication, but only if it is done well. Executives also talk about their twin goals
of employee engagement and managing reputation. Does engagement lead to happy
employees? Does managing a reputation automatically mean that a positive one will
emerge?
Good
Communication
Happy
Trusting
Employees
Happy
customers;
good
reputation
179
Appendix C. Theoretical Memo
Relationship Management is the concept that relates how public relations professionals
build relationships with important publics. The question is: how do they build those
relationships? What specific skills are important?
• Organizational communication: used in CSR literature to describe how organizations
communicate with employees
• Internal public relations: this is a new term that describes how PR professionals
include employees as publics
• Internal marketing: this term is not used much in the marketing literature, but seems
intuitive
• Inward marketing: This is what Bob Lauterborn calls internal communication. He
feels like this is a missing component of the 4Cs.
1. Who is responsible for this?
2. What is the role of public relations?
3. Is there a role in PR that includes this job?
4. The executive interviews reveal that these corporate communications executives do not
use any of these words—they use internal communication to describe what they do. To
them, this is a new and distinctive niche. Maybe they are right. How does this fit with the
literature on publics, trust and commitment?
5. The survey will use the questions on rich communication as a proxy for internal
communication, as well as established measures on publics, trust, and commitment.
180
Appendix D. List of Respondents’ Employers
Question 91: What company or industry do you work for?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
10 8.9 8.9 8.9
ad/pr agency
1 .9 .9 9.8
advertising agency/marketing
services
1 .9 .9 10.7
Aircraft systems
manufacturing
1 .9 .9 11.6
Automotive Manufacturing
Supplier
1 .9 .9 12.5
Bank of America
2 1.8 1.8 14.3
banking
1 .9 .9 15.2
Banking
2 1.8 1.8 17.0
BASF Corporation /
Chemical Industry
1 .9 .9 17.9
Capstrat Communications
1 .9 .9 18.8
Chemical Industry
1 .9 .9 19.6
Chemical Multinational
Supplier
1 .9 .9 20.5
Commercial
1 .9 .9 21.4
communications
1 .9 .9 22.3
con-e-co
1 .9 .9 23.2
Concrete Equipment
Company, Inc.
1 .9 .9 24.1
construction products
1 .9 .9 25.0
Consumer Goods, E & J
Gallo Winery
1 .9 .9 25.9
Consumer package goods
1 .9 .9 26.8
Curtiss-Wright Controls -
Aerospace and
Defense/Industrial
1 .9 .9 27.7
Durable heating/cooling
goods
1 .9 .9 28.6
education
1 .9 .9 29.5
Education
1 .9 .9 30.4
Electronics Industry
1 .9 .9 31.3
financial services
1 .9 .9 32.1
Financial services
1 .9 .9 33.0
Financial Services
3 2.7 2.7 35.7
Financial Services Industry,
BB&T
1 .9 .9 36.6
Valid
Hanesbrands, Inc. Apparel
industry
1 .9 .9 37.5
181
Health Insurance
1 .9 .9 38.4
Heavy duty truck
manufacturer
1 .9 .9 39.3
heavy duty truck
manufacturer and distributor
1 .9 .9 40.2
HR
1 .9 .9 41.1
Hubbell Inc. Electrical
Products and Engineering
1 .9 .9 42.0
IBM
1 .9 .9 42.9
LONDON MACHINERY
(0SHKOSH TRUCK CORP)
1 .9 .9 43.8
London Machinery Inc.
1 .9 .9 44.6
London Machinery INc.
1 .9 .9 45.5
manufacturing
3 2.7 2.7 48.2
Manufacturing
1 .9 .9 49.1
MANUFACTURING
2 1.8 1.8 50.9
Marketing
1 .9 .9 51.8
marketing communications
1 .9 .9 52.7
Marketing Communications
1 .9 .9 53.6
McNeilus
3 2.7 2.7 56.3
McNeilus Companies -
Refuse Division
1 .9 .9 57.1
McNeilus Companies
3 2.7 2.7 59.8
McNeilus Refuse
2 1.8 1.8 61.6
McNeilus Truck and
Manufacturing
1 .9 .9 62.5
Mortgage Industry/Finance
1 .9 .9 63.4
MTM
1 .9 .9 64.3
Non-profit - youth
1 .9 .9 65.2
non profit
1 .9 .9 66.1
nonprofit health field
1 .9 .9 67.0
Optical Retail
1 .9 .9 67.9
Oshkosh Truck
1 .9 .9 68.8
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
3 2.7 2.7 71.4
Oshkosh Truck Corporation,
Heavy Manufacturing
1 .9 .9 72.3
Pepsi
1 .9 .9 73.2
pharmaceutical
1 .9 .9 74.1
Pharmaceutical sales
1 .9 .9 75.0
PR
1 .9 .9 75.9
pr, advertising
1 .9 .9 76.8
182
Public Relations
2 1.8 1.8 78.6
Pulte Homes - Residential
Housing.
1 .9 .9 79.5
Railroad
1 .9 .9 80.4
Real Estate
1 .9 .9 81.3
RJ Reynolds
1 .9 .9 82.1
SAS -- computer
software/services
1 .9 .9 83.0
software
1 .9 .9 83.9
SouthLight, substance abuse
treatment
1 .9 .9 84.8
sports-Baltimore Ravens
1 .9 .9 85.7
St. Jude Medical
1 .9 .9 86.6
Telecom
1 .9 .9 87.5
television
1 .9 .9 88.4
Textile Industry
1 .9 .9 89.3
Time Warner
1 .9 .9 90.2
Tobacco
2 1.8 1.8 92.0
Tobacco Company
1 .9 .9 92.9
Transportation
1 .9 .9 93.8
Truck manufacturing
1 .9 .9 94.6
Wachovia
3 2.7 2.7 97.3
Wachovia Bank
1 .9 .9 98.2
Wachovia Bank / Wachovia
Securities
1 .9 .9 99.1
Wake Forest University,
Babcock Graduate School of
Management
1 .9 .9 100.0
Total
112 100.0 100.0
183
REFERENCES
Alsop, R. J. (2004, April 13). Reputation Officers: A New Breed of Executive, Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved on October 7, 2006 from
http://www.careerjournal.com/hrcenter/articles/20040413-alsop.html.
Altus, C. (2006, July 17). Happy staffers will keep your clients smiling. PR Week. p. 9.
Black, L. D. (2004). How companies manage for good. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Monash University, Melbourne.
Botan, C. H. (1992). International public relations: Critique and reformulation. Public
Relations Review, 18(2), 149-160.
Botan, C. H. & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field. Journal of
Communication, 54(4), 645-661.
Broom,G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and Theory of organization-public
relationships. In J.A. Ledingham & S.D. Bruning (Eds.) Public relations and
relationship management, (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Capella, J. N. (1991). Mutual adaptation and relativity of measurement. In B. M.
Montgomery & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 103-117).
New York: Guilford.
Carr, J. (1991). Communicating and relating. (3
rd
Ed.). USA: WC Brown.
Carroll, A. B. (2006, July 29). Trust is key when rating great workplaces. Retrieved 9
August 2006 from www.onlineathens.com.
Carroll, A. B. and Buchholtz, A. K. (2000). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder
management (4
th
ed.): Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Cheney, G. (1999). Values at work. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Chia, J. (2005). Measuring the immeasurable. Retrieved on October 9, 2006 from
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal_Files/Evaluation_Issue/CHIA_
ARTICLE.pdf#search=%22%20joy%20chia%20measuring%20the%20immeasurable%2
2.
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations (7
th
ed.)
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection,
and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11,
355-366.
184
Davis, A. (2000). Communicate to create learning, Public Relations Tactics 7(2): 26.
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of colonization. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and its problems. Chicago: Swallow.
Dougall, E. K. (2005). The ecology of public opinion environments and the evolution of
organization-activist relationships: A comparative case study of Australia's major
banks, 1981-2001. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane.
Dozier, D. M. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication
management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
DuBrin, A. (2000). Applying psychology: individual and organizational effectiveness.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Edelman Public Relations Agency (2006). The trust barometer. Retrieved 26 June 2006
from www.edelman.com.
Ehling, W. P., White, J., & Grunig, J. E. (1992). Public relations and marketing practices. In
J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp.
357-393). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational
relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy, Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258.
Forrester Research (2007). Transforming employees into brand advocates. Cambridge, MA.
Fortune’s “Most Admired” ranking for 2006 retrieved from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/full_list/ on October 14, 2006.
Foss, Sonja K. (2004). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (3
rd
ed.). Waveland
Press, Longgrove, IL.
Gaines-Ross, L. (2006, June 29). Coming soon to a company near you…the CRO? In
Bulldog Reporter’s Daily ‘Dog online newsletter.’ Retrieved 26 June 2006 from
www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog/issues/1_1/dailydog_barks_bites/index.html.
Gavin, M. B., & Mayer, R. C.(2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds
the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal 48(5),
874-888.
185
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books,
6-10.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510.
Gronstedt, A. (2000). The customer century: Lessons from world-class companies in
integrated marketing communication. New York: Routledge.
Grossman, D. (2006, July 10). Communication builds trust within. PR Week, p. 8.
Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory.
In C. H. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 17-44). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships.
Public Relations Review 91(2), 121-139.
Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (2006). The excellence theory. In C. Botan &
V.Hazelton (Eds.) Public relations theory II (pp.21-62), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P (1992). What is an effective organization? In J.
E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.),
Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65-90). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & Hon, L (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.
Retrieved 26 June 2006 from www.instituteforpr.com. Published by the Institute for
Public Relations Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation: Gainesville, FL.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). Antecedents of Relationship and outcomes, In J.A.
Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.) Public relations and relationship management (pp.
23-53), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding and decoding in the television discourse. In S. Hall (ed). Culture,
media, language (136). London: Hutchison.
Hazleton, V., & Kennan, W. (2000). Social capital: Reconceptualizing the bottom line.
Corporate Communications 5(2), 81.
Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict
management strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD.
186
Hutton, J. G., Goodman, M. B., Alexander, J. B., & Genest, C. M. (2001). Reputation
management: The new face of corporate public relations? Public Relations Review 27
247-261.
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005) Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review 31(2),
277-280.
Kelleher, T. (2001). Public relations roles and media choice. Journal of Public Relations
Research 13(4), 303-320.
Keller, E., & Berry, J. (2003). The influentials. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Kennan, W. R., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Internal public relations, social capital, and the role
of effective organizational communication. In C. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.) Public
relations theory II (pp. 311-338). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
questions, Annual Review of Psychology 50, 569-598.
Kruckeberg, D. (2000). Public relations: Toward a global professionalism. In J.A.
Ledingham & S.D. Bruning (Eds.) Public Relations as Relationship Management,
Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.
Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (1988). Public relations and community: A reconstructed
theory. New York: Praeger.
Lauterborn, R. F. (2004). Personal conversation about Inward Marketing.
Ledingham, J. A. (2006). Relationship management: A general theory of public relations. In
C. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 465-483). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum Associates.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations:
Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55-65.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudinal study of organization-public
relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of
relationships management. In J.A. Ledingham & S.D. Bruning’s (Eds.) Public relations
as relationship management (pp. 55-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
L’Etang, J. (1996). Corporate responsibility and public relations ethics. In J. L’Etang, & M.
Pieczka (Eds.), Critical perspectives in public relations (pp. 82-105). London:
International Thomson Business Press.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 63, 967-985.
187
Lievrouw, L. A., & Finn, T. A. (1990). Identifying the common dimensions of
communication: The communication systems model. In B. Ruben & L. Lievrouw (Eds.),
Mediation, information, and communication: Information and behavior 3 (pp. 37-65).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Lowenstein, M. (2006, February 14). The trust equation: Build employee relationship
credibility, rapport and integrity to leverage customer advocacy. CRMGuru.
Retrieved March 6, 2006 from http://www.Crmguru.com.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. R. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness:
An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(1), 97-
108.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3), 709-734.
Miles, R. H. (1987). Managing the corporate social environment-A grounded theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mishra, K. E. & Li, C. (working paper). Blogging in the Fortune 500 U.S. and Chinese
Websites.
Mishra, K. E., & Mishra, A. (working paper). The Influence of Feelings-as-Information on
Trust Judgments over Time.
Mishra, A. K. & Mishra, K. E. (2005). Trust from near and far: Organizational commitment
and turnover in franchise-based organizations. Presented at the 65
th
annual meeting of
the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust, in R.
Kramer and T. Tyler (eds.) Trust in organizations (pp. 261-287). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
National Consumers League press release (2006, May 31). Survey: American consumers’
definition of the socially responsible company runs counter to established beliefs.
National Consumers League, Fleishman-Hillard Examine Public Attitudes and
Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility, Release Date: May 31, 2006.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage Press.
188
Northcutt, N., & McCoy, D. (2004). Interactive qualitative analysis: A systems methods for
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Oakland, J. S. (2003). Total quality management. (3
rd
ed). Butterworth-Heinemann.
Omachonu, V. K., & Ross, J. E. (2004). Principles of total quality (3
rd
ed). Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Pacanowsky, M. E., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as
cultural performance, Communication Monographs 50(2), 126-147.
Paine, L. S. (2003). Value Shift. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Paine, K. D. (1994). Move over TQM! Benchmarking is the new tool for the ‘90s.
Communication World 11(6), 42-45.
Paine, K. D. (2003). Guidelines for measuring trust in organizations. Retrieved 26 June
2006 from www.instituteforpr.com. Published by The Institute for Public Relations.
Plummer, J. (2005). Editorial: The fragile nature of corporate reputation. Journal of
Advertising 34(3),289.
Post, J. E, Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation. Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Pratt, C. B. (2006). Reformulating the emerging theory of corporate social responsibility as
good governance. In C. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 249-
277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associations.
Rappa, M. (2006). www.digitalenterprise.org
Reichheld, F. F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & May, S. K. (2004). Information adequacy, job
satisfaction and organizational culture in a dispersed-network organization. Journal of
Applied Communication 32(1), 28-54.
Salkind, N. J. (2004). Statistics for people who hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schultz, D. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Lauterborn, R. F. (1992). Integrated marketing
communications. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Books.
Shaw, K. (2005). Getting leaders involved in communication strategy. Strategic
Communication Management 9(6), 14-17.
189
Sparks, B. A., Bradley, G. L., & Callan, V. J. (1997). The impact of staff empowerment and
communication style on customer evaluations: The special case of service failure.
Psychology & Marketing, 14(5), 475-493.
Steil, L. K., Barker, L. L., & Watsoh, K. W. (1983) Effective listening: Key to your success.
NY: Random House.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory, (2
nd
Ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Sudhakar, B., & Patil, S. M. (2006). Measuring Up. Communication World 23(5), 32-35.
Taylor, M. (2004). Exploring public relations in Croatia through relational communication
and media richness theories. Public Relations Review 30(2), 145-160.
Thomlinson, T. D. (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations. In
J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning’s (Eds.) Public relations as relationship management
(pp.177-203). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Toth, E. L. (2000). From personal influence to interpersonal influence: A model for
relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning’s (Eds.) Public relations
as relationship management (pp. 205-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Trevino, L. K., Webster, J., and Stein, E. W. (2000). Making connections: Complementary
influences on communication media choices, attitudes, and use. Organization Science
11(2), 163-182.
Trevino, L. K. (2006, June 12). Personal communication.
University of Texas anonymous description of research methods. Retrieved August 12, 2006
from
http://www.utexas.edu/academic/diia/assessment/iar/how_to/methods/survey_tables_pec
omparison.pdf.
Vercic, D., & Grunig, J. E. (1995, July). The origins of public relations theory in economics
and strategic management. Paper presented to the Second International Public Relations
Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia.
Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Stank, T., Goldsby, T. J., & Markland, R. E. (2004). The
performance implications of media richness in a business-to-business service
environment: Direct versus indirect effects. Management Science 50(8), 1106-1119.
Walton, R. (1969). Interpersonal peacemaking. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wilson, L. J. (1994). The return of Gemeinschaft: A theory of public relations and corporate
community relations as relationship building. In A.F. Alkhafaji (Ed.), Business research
190
yearbook: Global business perspectives 1 (pp. 135-141). Lanham, MD: University Press
of America.
Wilson, L. J. (2000). Building employee and community relationships through volunteerism:
A case study. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning’s (Eds.) Public relations as
relationship management (pp. 137-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J.R. (2003). Mass media research: An introduction, 7
th
Ed.,
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson.
Yang, S. U., & Grunig, J. E. (2005). Decomposing organizational reputation: The effects of
organization-public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organizations
and evaluations of organizational performance, Journal of Communication Management
9(4), 305-325.
Zelnak, S. (2006). Interview with Dennis Michael, Producer/Host on Sky Radio. Podcast
Retrieved June 27, 2006 from http://www.martinmarietta.com/Corporate/profile.asp.
doc_840700783.pdf
Relationship management is the practice of building strong relationships with important publics, including employees. It is expected that richer communication flowing between both employees and management will enhance feelings of trust between management and employees, ultimately resulting in stronger commitment to each other and to the organization.
INTERNAL COMMUNICATION: BUILDING TRUST, COMMITMENT, AND A
POSITIVE REPUTATION THROUGH RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT WITH
EMPLOYEES
Karen Elizabeth Mishra
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication.
Chapel Hill
2007
Approved by:
Lois Boynton
Elizabeth Dougall
Robert Lauterborn
Steve May
Michael Rappa
ii
©2007
Karen Elizabeth Mishra
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iii
ABSTRACT
Karen Mishra: Internal communication: Building trust, commitment, and a positive
reputation through relationship management with employees
(Under the direction of Lois Boynton)
Relationship management is the practice of building strong relationships with
important publics, including employees. It is expected that richer communication flowing
between both employees and management will enhance feelings of trust between
management and employees, ultimately resulting in stronger commitment to each other and
to the organization. In addition, these feelings of trust and commitment will lead to a more
positive reputation for the firm, as employees are happy to be employed by the organization
and in turn, share their positive feelings with customers and other stakeholders. This
relationship management effort is thought to build long-term relationships for the mutual
benefit of an organization and its stakeholders. As employees have been thought to have
more credibility with the public as representatives of the organization than corporate
communications efforts, their opinions can influence other stakeholders to have a more
positive opinion about the reputation of the firm. Internal communication describes this goal
of communicating richly with employees to engage them in the priorities of the organization.
Face-to-face communication was found to be the best method for building close relationships
with employee publics. This study incorporates findings from employee interviews,
executive interviews, as well as a large-scale survey of employees to better understand the
role of rich communication in the context of relationship management with employees.
iv
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my husband, Aneil, and my children, Maggie and Jack. I
could not have considered going back to school and completing this degree at this stage of
my life without their constant love and support. They all have made many sacrifices on my
behalf, and I am deeply grateful.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am deeply indebted to the professors who guided me through this process, including
my advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Lois Boynton, and my committee members, Mr.
Robert Lauterborn, Dr. Elizabeth Dougall, Dr. Steve May, and Dr. Michael Rappa. They all
have provided me with insights and support that have made this journey worthwhile.
I am also grateful to my J-School friend, Nancy Pawlow, who has been a source of
great support and encouragement to me.
I appreciate the efforts of all employees and executives who participated in my
interviews and surveys. These results would not be possible without their kind support of my
work. In addition, Linda Trevino, a Penn State friend, helped me include her work on media
richness, which has proven to be central to my findings.
In addition, I would also like to thank the Roy H. Park family for their generous gift
to UNC and to the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. This fellowship has
made it possible for me to learn new things without causing my family too much of a
financial hardship.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Problem Definition 1
Study Rationale 7
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11
Publics 12
Organizational Communication 13
Internal Public Relations 15
Inward Marketing 17
Media Richness 18
Building Trusting Relationships 20
Commitment 21
Reputation 23
III. THE CONCEPT OF RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT 26
Research Questions 35
IV. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 37
vii
Qualitative Research 37
Quantitative Research 43
V. RESULTS 55
Qualitative Results 56
Quantitative Results 90
VI. DISCUSSION 114
APPENDICES 137
REFERENCES 178
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Mean demographic responses 91
2. Means for rich communication 92
3. One-Sample T- Test of rich communication measures 93
4. Means of communication richness 94
5. Means and Reliabilities for Relationships with Employee Publics 95
6. Correlations Among Relationships with Employee Publics 95
7. Means of Employee Publics Constructs 96
8. Means for Company Trust 97
9. Means for Managerial Trust 98
10. Correlation Analysis of Trust measures 99
11. Correlation Analysis of Trust and Internal Communication
measures
99
12. Regression Coefficients for Trust and Internal Communication 100
13. Regression Coefficients for Trust and Weighted Internal
Communication
100
14. Means for Affective and Continuance Commitment 101
15. Correlations of Commitment with Internal Communication 102
16. Correlation between firm seniority and affective commitment 103
ix
17. Regression table for Influence on Affective Commitment 104
18. Correlation of Trust and Commitment 105
19. Regression Coefficients for Trust and Affective Commitment 105
20. Descriptive Statistics of Communication Preferences 106
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
A. Theoretical Model 34
B. Mindmap of employees’ perceptions of how communication affects
personal relationships
68
C. Mindmap of executive perceptions of their role in promoting open
communication
87
D. Collective mindmap of employee and executive perceptions 89
E. Communications pie 108
F. Pie chart of reading, writing, talking and listening 118
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Problem Definition
A study by the Great Place To Work Institute found that employees enjoy working in
an environment where they “trust the people they work for, have pride in what they do and
enjoy the people they work with” (Carroll, 2006, p. 1). Business ethics scholar Archie
Carroll argues that ethical organizations take care of their employees, working to build trust
with them through positive communication efforts, as well as demonstrating respect for
employees and acting with integrity in all employee relations. He claims that if management
does not demonstrate honesty, transparency, genuine caring, supportiveness and a
willingness to listen, employees will end up with less trust in management.
Lack of employee commitment leads to lack of ambassadorship by employees on
behalf of their organization. Two research firms, Walker Information and Hudson Institute,
recently joined forces to conduct a nationwide employee loyalty study and found that “Only
24 percent of employees consider themselves truly loyal, committed to their organization and
its goals. If employees feel less involved in the product or service production process, it can
hurt the ultimate relationship with the customer” (Lowenstein, 2006, p. 1). Mathieu, Gilson,
& Ruddy (2006) found that in a team context happy employees provide better service, which
leads to happy, loyal customers. A recent PR Week article (Altus, 2006) supports this claim,
identifying one manager who was quoted as commenting on the reasons for keeping
employees happy, “In our business, clients don’t like change” (p. 9).
2
This dissertation will examine the impact of organizational communication and
relationship management on employee trust, commitment, and firm reputation.
Organizational scholar George Cheney (1999), in his study of the Mondragon Cooperatives,
found that employees are now demanding consideration as an internal market. The use of
internal organizational communication, also referred to as inward marketing by advertising
professor Robert Lauterborn (2005), leads employees to be better customer ambassadors
(Lowenstein, 2006). Employees have important knowledge and skills about both their jobs
and the organization, providing employees the opportunity to be organizational advocates to
the customer, who in turn can enhance the firm’s reputation (Gronstedt, 2000).
Relationship management is the coordination, management, and relationship building
between an organization and its publics with a variety of publics, including investors,
community activists, suppliers, and even employees. Integrated Marketing Communication
scholar Gronstedt (2000) points out that the roles of each of these publics is overlapping, for
instance, both employees and investors are becoming activists, which makes it more
important for organizations to better manage communications between and across these
different publics. Theoretically, relationship management is the practice of building
relationships with an organization’s publics (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) by attempting “to
restore and maintain a sense of community” (Kruckeberg, 2000, p. 145). Relationship has
been defined by Thomlinson (2000) as “as set of expectations two parties have for each
other’s behavior based on their interaction patterns” (p. 178). Increasingly, a focus of this
relationship is how the parties communicate with each other to build the relationship (Toth,
2000), although the mechanics of how this communication takes place and what outcomes it
produces have not been widely studied.
3
To date, employees have been understudied by relationship management scholars.
This may reflect managers’ lack of concern in their own employees. As Cheney (1999)
points out, “Amid the rush toward heightened efficiency and competitiveness is a sense that
most organizations don’t care a great deal about their employees” (p. x). Organizational
communication with employees is potentially insufficient because the emphasis by
organizations is toward external publics about products and services through marketing
communications such as advertising or public relations. Cheney points out that there is an
opportunity to meld the internal and external communications of the organization, instead of
keeping them distinct. Kennan and Hazleton (2000) are among the first to define internal
public relations as an important step in recognizing employees as a distinct public worthy of
individualized attention.
1
As a result of such a narrow focus on marketing communications, employee
communication can suffer, and with it, employee trust and commitment. Cheney (1999)
suggested that values in the workplace can be evaluated by the role communication plays.
Broom, Casey and Ritchey (2000) agree that communication is a critical aspect of how
organization-public relationships are evaluated. Gavin and Mayer (2005) found that internal
communication affects the trust between employees and managers. Additionally, Mishra
(1996) found that “the extent to which the trusted person engages in undistorted
communication then reinforces the trust (in terms of openness) placed in him or her” (p.
276). Organization communication scholars have shown that the adequacy of information
provided by the organization has also contributes to an employees’ job satisfaction
(Rosenfeld, Richman & May, 2004). Communication practices within an organization are
1
Researchers William Kennan and Vincent Hazleton give Public Relations Scholar Carl Botan credit for
prompting them to label the term “internal public relations” (per email correspondence with Dr. Hazleton).
4
expected to have an important influence on the degree to which employees trust their
managers and the organization’s top echelon, as well as their commitment to the
organization.
One key dimension of communication that is expected to influence trust and related
outcomes is its “richness” (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987). Information that is richer (face-
to-face communication) is considered more personalized and reduces uncertainty because it
contains higher quality information (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987). The richness of the
media used to communicate with employees have been found to contribute towards increased
satisfaction and loyalty in an employee-organization context by management scholars Daft,
Lengel, and Trevino (1987) and in a business-to-business context by marketing scholars
Vickery, Droge, Stank, Goldsby, and Markland (2004).
Public relations researcher Tom Kelleher (2001) found that public relations
practitioners relied on written communication while public relations managers relied more on
face-to-face communication. Cheney (1999) also observed that face-to-face communication
is considered more reliable than written communication in a business context because it
provides more information to the other party. It is important to understand if these
differences in communication richness do matter in terms of reliability and trustworthiness
among employees.
Despite researcher agreement about the importance of face-to-face communication,
digital communication has nevertheless become a prevalent method for organizations to
develop relationships both internally and externally, as well as to facilitate information
searches (Gronstedt, 2000; Rappa, 2006). This finding is likely because digital
communication is low-cost and perceived as an efficient way to reach many people. The
5
question remains, however, if it is effective for achieving its desired purpose of conveying
higher quality information, as rich communication has been proven to do. As electronic
media scholar Nicholas Negroponte (1995) admonishes, “the medium is no longer the
message” (p. 61), meaning that there is an explosion of media with which to communicate,
resulting in less emphasis on using one medium, but a new emphasis on integrating multiple
types of media, such as email, video, etc.
In the public relations literature, trust is considered a critical aspect of the
organization-public relationship (Botan & Taylor, 2004). In an earlier study, Bruning and
Ledingham (2000) found that trust had a significant impact on customer satisfaction. In
addition, Wilson (1994) found that both employee and public perceptions of commitment,
trust and mutual respect are important for understanding organization-public relationships.
All of these findings focus on the relationship aspect of publics and the positive impact on
customer satisfaction and firm reputation yet fail to consider the impact of communication on
that relationship or on the relationship with other stakeholders. Paine (2003), in her
“Guidelines for measuring trust in organizations” specified that organizations should make
sure to ask several questions prior to measuring trust in organizations, including “Which
channels of communication were used and/or deemed most important to use in disseminating
the messages? (e.g., the media…word-of-mouth…direct mail…special events?)” (p. 11).
When an employee develops a relationship with external stakeholders, s/he can become an
“ambassador” of that firm. Therefore, relationships exist not only between an organization
and its publics, but relationships between an organization’s different publics are also
important. In addition, employees can take on multiple roles, including that of investor and
activist, as well as employee (Dougall, 2005; Gronstedt, 2000). If employees are considered
6
an important public, they can be an important source of relationships with other publics, such
as customers.
Communication between employees and external publics may be critical for building
trust between the organization and those publics, and for enhancing the organization’s
reputation. Public relations scholars Grunig and Huang (2000) suggest that an organization’s
reputation is an outcome of its behaviors that a public remembers. Recent studies
demonstrate that consumers trust communication from employees more than they trust
communication from upper-level members of an organization, such as CEOs (Edelman,
2006; Keller & Berry, 2000). This finding stems from the publics general distrust of
advertising and their growing trust in getting information from “someone like me” (Keller &
Berry, 2000). Plummer (2005) recognized that corporate reputation is at stake because of the
scandals occurring at large corporations such as Enron or Tyco, and he admonished firms to
pay more attention to their reputation.
Reputation is becoming recognized as an asset to be managed and firms are now
starting to hire Chief Reputation Officers, or CROs (Gaines-Ross, 2006). GlaxoSmithKline
PLC created the position of vice president of corporate image and reputation (Alsop, 2004).
This executive is charged with talking with employees and external stakeholders to help them
understand the company’s perspective. In general, CROs are being hired to monitor and
manage a firm’s external reputation by monitoring how various stakeholders perceive the
firm. In addition, CROs are responsible for managing the communications that come from
the firm in order to enhance firm reputation. These CROs, then, are acting as ambassadors to
both internal markets, such as employees, and external markets, such as customers.
7
An emphasis on rich communication between the organization and its employees will
reap benefits not only with building closer employee relationships, but will enhance the
reputation of the firm by building stronger relationships with important external stakeholders,
as well.
Study Rationale
Studying internal communication is important because it is a valuable means of
building trust between employees and management. Grossman (2006) cited a Zogby poll
that showed that 98% of those surveyed believe that trust and honesty are important in the
workplace, but fully 69% rated their leaders as “low” in these traits. By focusing on the use
of internal communication between an organization’s leadership and its employees
(Gronstedt, 2000), a common vision can emerge between the organization and its employees.
Effective organizational communication is important for building critical
relationships that harness the enthusiasm, loyalty (Reichheld, 2001) and trust (Mishra &
Mishra, 2005) of an organization’s employees by creating shared values. Martin Marietta
CEO Steve Zelnak, in an interview with Sky Radio (2006) emphasized that ethical
communication and decision making produces a track record of achievement for the firm,
and makes them an “employer of choice.”
Public relations scholars Botan and Taylor (2004) identified the most striking trend in
public relations as the co-creational perspective. In this perspective, relationships with an
organization’s publics are seen as important to the co-development of shared meaning or
shared values. As a result, it is important to understand how organizations co-create this
meaning with employees. Communication practices are expected to be a critical means to
creating such meaning. This practice of co-creating meaning is relationship management,
8
which is the theoretical construct that underpins this study. Relationship management is the
practice of building strong relationships with all constituents by public relations
professionals.
One type of communication practice, inward marketing (Lauterborn, 2004), internal
communication (Deetz, 1992), or internal public relations (IPR) (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006),
is often overlooked as being common sense (Davis, 2000), and is usually left to the devices
of the human resources department at the policy-making level. However, there is a new
emphasis on promoting dialogue internally within organizations (Gronstedt, 2000) in order to
encourage employees to understand and even promote an organization’s shared meaning to
external stakeholders. By providing employees with more of a voice and role in managing
the workplace, IPR provides the potential for creating shared meaning, which in turn builds
the basis for a trusting and committed relationship between an organization and its
employees.
Gronstedt (2000), an academic turned consultant, identifies many firms that use
internal marketing, such as Xerox, where front-line workers are empowered to act as
“customer advocates” (p. 30), but acknowledges that this concept has a long way to go until
it is fully accepted by corporate America. This approach is similar to previous Total Quality
Management approaches, where lower-level employees were encouraged to participate in
improving quality from the bottom-up (Omachonu & Ross, 2004; Oakland, 2003). This
approach was considered a fad by employees because organizations did not know how to
fully implement these programs nor reward those who participated in improving the quality
of the end product.
9
Communication has been identified by marketing scholars Morgan and Hunt (1994)
as an important ingredient in building relationships between an organization and its
customers or stakeholders. In the public relations and marketing literatures, however,
communication, has not been explicated so that managers understand the best communication
methods for improving those relationships. Management scholars, Daft, Lengel, and Trevino
(1987) developed the concept of “media richness” to identify how much information a
communication method provides between two parties. This concept of “media richness”
might provide more information about the communication methods that are most effective in
achieving organizational objectives.
The concept of rich media has been extended from its original context (Daft, Lengel,
& Trevino, 1987) to include the use of digital communication such as email, intranets, and
forums within a business-to-business setting (Vickery et al., 2004), but not within the
organization-employee context. Gronstedt (2000) noted that the newer forms of digital
communication would offer many benefits for the communication experience, including
efficiency and immediacy. He also noted that the more personal methods of face-to-face
communication were most effective for building trust and solving complex problems. Public
relations scholars Grunig and Hon (1999) also identify the impact of digital communication
or new media as an important aspect to study in the research on publics and trust. They
predicted that digital communication would increase in importance as organizations would
continue to build relationships with publics even in cyberspace. It is not clear, however,
whether digital communication is perceived by employees as being as rich as face-to-face
communication or non-digital written communication.
10
In summary, this study will examine how organizations utilize the rich media at their
disposal to engage the trust and commitment of their employees and whether or not this
communication process affects the reputation of the firm as identified by employees and
Fortune magazine. This study will examine the communication methods of four firms—a
software firm, a financial services firm, a retail firm, and to understand how they use multiple
methods of communication including face-to-face communication, written communication,
and digital communication to build relationships with their employees.
This study drew on a variety of literatures, starting with the public relations concept
of an organization’s publics. Publics are those stakeholders identified as critical to the
organization’s mission. Employees are often an overlooked public, and will be the focus of
this study. In addition, the concept of organizational communication, drawing from both the
management and communication studies literatures are critical to understanding how
organizations communicate with their employee publics. One aspect that this study will
survey is the impact of media richness (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987) on organizational
communication and how it builds trust and commitment with their employee public. Finally,
internal public relations (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006) is the name given to communication
with employee publics. Aspects of this relatively new term will be examined from both the
public relations and the IMC perspectives in the literature review in the following chapter.
The dissertation that follows includes a literature review, followed by the methods
chapter that details the specifics of the study, as well as the list of survey and interview
questions, and how the data were analyzed. The interview and survey questions all appear in
the appendices.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter is designed to explicate terms that are key in identifying employees as a
public, the approach to communication with employees, and the goals of that
communication.
The literature used in this study will draw on a variety of inter-related disciplines,
including public relations, organizational communication, management, and integrated
marketing communications. The first literature addressed is the public relations concept of
an organization’s publics. Publics are those stakeholders identified as critical to the
organization’s mission (Dewey, 1927). Friedman (1970) emphasized an organization’s
duties to its stockholders, or those who had invested financially to reap the profits of the firm.
In contrast, Post, Preston and Sachs (2002) identify stakeholders, or any party participating in
the creation of value for the firm, which include employees.
Second, the organizational communication literature, drawing from both the
management and communication studies disciplines is critical to understanding how
organizations communicate with their employee publics. This focus on employees as publics
has been termed “internal public relations” by Kennan and Hazleton (2006, p. 311). The
marketing communications perspective calls this inward marketing (Lauterborn, 2005). This
term is important to understanding how public relations professionals should include
12
employees in their strategic focus, as well as how public relations professionals can do this
tactically.
Finally, this study will survey the impact of media richness (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino,
1987) on organizational communication and how it allows the organization to build trust and
commitment with its employee public, as well as how it upholds the firm’s reputation with its
external publics.
Publics
Publics have been defined in a variety of ways in the extant literature. Early in the
20
th
century, Dewey (1927) identified publics as groups of people with a common purpose
who are organized to act. Decades later, Ehling, White, and Grunig (1992) described publics
as distinct from markets. Publics are more social and personal than abstract markets.
Dougall (2005) also described the label of public as one who has a stake in the organization’s
future. Carroll and Buchholtz (2000) identified a five-step method for stakeholder analysis
which entails 1) identifying who the stakeholders are, 2) understanding what their stakes are,
3) identifying the opportunities and challenges presented by the stakeholders to the firm, 4)
considering the firm’s responsibilities to its stakeholders, and 5) selecting strategies for
dealing with stakeholders such as collaboration, defense, negotiation, etc. Once publics are
distinct, methods for communicating with them must be set in place.
Grunig’s (1989) excellence study asserted that two-way communication between an
organization and its publics was more ethical than one-way communication, yet public
relations ethics scholar Jacquie L’Etang (1996) observed that organizations with more power
than their publics have less interest in participating in symmetrical or two-way
communication. Management scholar Jim Miles’ (1987) study of insurance companies found
13
that collaborative problem-solving was the first strategy of firms aiming to develop long-term
relationships with stakeholders based on trust and communication.
This literature focusing on publics is important to understanding the concept of
relationship management, which analyzes the variety of publics that an organization must
manage and advocates the use of building relationships as an effective way for public
relations professionals to engage with their publics (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). One of
the ways an organization builds relationships with its publics is through its communication
efforts.
Organizational Communication
Organizational communication is critical for building trusting relationships between
employees and the organization (Mayer & Gavin, 2005) that are open and honest (Mishra &
Mishra, 2005). Deetz (1992) contends that communication between a company and its
employees is not participatory or effective unless it is interactive. He suggests that
communication is effective when understanding is achieved between the parties who are
communicating. He also suggests that there be opportunity for both parties to express
themselves to each other in an authentic manner. For instance, interactive communication,
such as a public forum, would provide an opportunity for each party to contribute to the
exchange, as opposed to a news release, which does not allow room for two-way
communication and feedback.
Organization communication to employee publics, however, has often been
overlooked as a less-important part of a managers’ job (Bobo, 2000). Communication
efforts are often taken for granted as managers believe that employees already know what is
happening in the organization or that they might not really care (Davis, 2000). Instead of
14
relying on traditional ways of communicating via newsletters or weekly staff meetings, there
is a renewed emphasis on promoting dialogue with employees and facilitating learning
(Davis, 2000) both face-to-face and by utilizing new media, such as internal blogging and
intranet forums. In the 1980s, this type of effort would have been described as Total Quality
Management (TQM). TQM had its drawbacks, as employees saw it as the fad of the month,
and not a sincere effort to promote dialogue (Paine, 1994).
Information studies scholars Leah Lievrouw and Andrew Finn (1990) identified the
dimensions of communication model in which communication is presumed to be mediated,
but will range in its degree of involvement, control and temporality (Thomlinson, 2000).
Communications author Jacquelyn B. Carr (1991) agreed that interpersonal communication
is important in building relationships because the parties involved are critical to what is
communicated.
In examining how companies utilize corporate communication efforts, Gronstedt
(2000) identifies the differences in communication styles as “high-tech” vs. “high-touch.”
He argues that both are necessary to communicate effectively both within and outside of the
organization. “The high-tech ways of online communications offer unprecedented efficiency
in transactions, deliveries, information retrieval, and immediacy of communication. The
high-touch vehicle of personal meetings, on the other hand, is unrivaled in its knack for
bonding, building trust, developing ideas, and solving complex problems” (p. 219). This
integration of high-tech, high-touch media is one way that communication can be further
integrated to promote shared values between an organization and its stakeholders. Digital
communication scholar Nicholas Negroponte (1995) points out that “one channel of
communication might provide the information missing in the other” (p. 98). In addition, he
15
concluded that digital communication will allow people to seek out information rather than
information being imposed on them. Vickery et al. (2004) suggested that the integration of
media will result in a feeling of “closeness to the provider” (p. 1118).
Organizational communication efforts aimed at employees must allow for two-way
communication in order to build trust between the two parties. Organizations often aim
communication at employees, and thus, do not allow for feedback or even a way for
employees to initiate communication. Digital communication is becoming more prevalent as
organizations rely on email and the intranet to push communication out to employees. This
study will test how employees perceive these efforts, their perceptions of the richness of
these communication methods, as well as their perceptions of its effectiveness and provision
for two-way communication.
Internal Public Relations
The move towards workplace democracy (Deetz, 1992) was supposed to empower
employees to have a voice in their places of work, similar to the total quality management
movement. The hope of creating such a climate was that organizations could focus on
fostering dialogue with employees as a means of building effective relationships.
Practitioner evidence suggests that workplace democracy is still evolving and that more
efforts are needed to strengthen those relationships between the organization and its
employee public. Communication efforts between an organization and its employees are
often studied in the organizational communication discipline as a way to create participatory
communication. Public relations scholars are finally discovering that a focus on employees
as a distinct public is just as important as a focus on external publics.
16
Kennan and Hazleton (2006) are among the first public relations scholars to propose
internal public relations, or IPR as a public relations practice. This concept differs from
employee communication in its emphasis on treating employees as a distinct and important
public, and providing for feedback and two-way communication, as opposed to the old ways
of one-way communication. Kennan and Hazleton found that despite this move to workplace
democracy, IPR are still rare and one-way, moving from the organization to the employee
only. They claim that “success at internal public relations, then, lies not in planning, control,
or cooperation, but in the effective management of group relationships to produce an
environment in which task accomplishment is enhanced” (p. 315). Their view of internal
public relations is one of empowering employees to harness the skills and abilities they bring
as opposed to management attempting to control their actions, creating a more proactive and
interactive role for employees. Kennan and Hazleton’s conception of internal public
relations puts workforce democracy into practice.
Kennan and Hazleton (2006) also identify social capital as a binding force that will
encourage employees to become more engaged with the organization’s mission through
effective communication. Social capital is the glue that binds a community together, such as
shared values and a sense of community. They argue that building both trust and
identification is critical to the understanding of the importance of social capital in internal
public relations. They also argue that communication is the vehicle through which IPR is
accomplished. This can bring about varying levels of social capital within an organization,
such as “productivity, efficiency, quality, customer satisfaction, net asset value, stock value,
employee satisfaction, employee commitment, organizational adaptation, etc.” (p. 330).
17
Internal public relations is a concept which recognizes that employees are an
important and distinct public. The integrated marketing communications literature describes
this focus on employee communication as inward marketing. These concepts, while
developed in different disciplines, are similar in orientation.
Inward Marketing
Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn introduced the concept of integrated marketing
communication in 1992, argue that organizations must not approach communications from
the inside-out (or from the organization’s perspective), but from the outside-in, thereby
communicating with customers from their perspective in ways and in places where they will
be most receptive to the message. Lauterborn’s (2004) idea of inward marketing states that
organizations must consider their first stakeholders when preparing this integrated plan—
their employees. By including employees as a distinct public or stakeholder in a marketing
communications plan, an organization will build trust with employees as well as harness their
enthusiasm and commitment to the organization with other stakeholders. This approach is
similar to Gronstedt’s (2000) notion of integrating communications vertically from
employees to middle management to top management. Gronstedt found that firms that
integrate vertical communication are better able to communicate their values and brand
promises to customers, which in turn ultimately improve the reputation of the firm.
Inward marketing is an action by the marketing staff that considers employees as
important of an audience as any external audience. If internal marketing is taken seriously,
Gronstedt (2000) has shown that it can have a positive effect on building trust with
employees. The concept of trust and its impact on relationship building is explicated in the
18
following section with the following goals of building trust, commitment and ultimately
positively affecting the company’s reputation.
Media Richness
Managers in organizations use a variety of ways or media to communicate with
employees. A manager’s use of “rich media” (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987) varies in its
ability to convey social cues in order to reduce uncertainty and equivocality. “Medium
richness was originally proposed by Daft and Lengel (1986) as an objective characteristic of
a medium -- in which richer media are higher in immediate feedback, multiple cues, natural
language, and personal focus. Later, social influence theorists (e.g., Fulk, 1993) proposed
that richness should be considered at least partially perceptual because media can be
perceived differently by different people in different social contexts” (Trevino, 2006). Media
richness is a misnomer when considered from the mass communications context because
face-to-face communication, for instance, is not mediated communication while email
communication is mediated through use of a computer.
In a study of middle- and upper-level managers, Daft, Lengel, and Trevino (1987)
found that managers match the type of media used to communicate with employees with the
task before them. Their typology of rich media ranges from high media richness (i.e., face-
to-face communication) to low media richness (i.e., unaddressed documents). They placed
the telephone and personalized documents in between the extremes. They found that for tasks
that are ambiguous, managers use more face-to-face, personalized communication, or rich
media. In addition, they found that for tasks that are less ambiguous and more straight-
forward, managers are more likely to employ less rich media, or communication that is
written and less personalized. The concept of rich media is important to understanding how
19
organizational communication is developed between managers and subordinates. It is also
important to understand how both managers and employees perceive the richness of their
present communication efforts, in order to understand the levels of trust and commitment by
employees.
In later work, Trevino, Webster, and Stein (2000) included electronic media in their
study of media richness and found that media choice by managers was influenced by
perceived medium richness. They discovered that managers’ new media choice was
influenced by perceptions of human/technology interactions and perceptions of media
richness. In other words, managers chose what media to use based on their perceptions of
how their employees would react to that medium, as well as how adept they were to using the
chosen media. This discomfort with newer mediums could be as a result of their
unavailability or inaccessibility to them during their formative working years. They also
found, however, that media symbolism was more important than media richness in the
selection of which media to use in disseminating information. Media symbolism represents
how others would perceive a message in that particular media format, for example, face-to-
face communication conveys more immediacy than a letter, which is more formal and less
immediate. They had mixed results with email communication, however, finding that some
employees found it immediate, while others did not, calling for more research on how
individuals perceive the sending and receiving of email messages.
A more recent study by Vickery et al. (2004) in a business-to-business context found
that suppliers did consider digital communication “relatively rich” (p. 1116). This finding
suggests that organizations might be better at integrating rich media with external publics
than they are with internal publics. This concept of integrating rich media in internal
20
communication requires further exploration, especially since email is such an integral
element in day-to-day management/employee communications. There is limited public
relations scholarship on the concept of media richness. Public relations scholar Kelleher
(2001) did discover that public relations managers primarily utilize face-to-face
communication and public relations practitioners primarily rely on written communication.
They both use email communication similarly.
The concept of media richness (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987) has power to dissect
the types of communication efforts organizations use with employees to determine whether
or not these communication methods build relationships with employees in an internal public
relations effort, and in turn, build trust and commitment with that employee public.
Building Trusting Relationships
The concept of trust has not been precisely explicated (Kramer, 1999). Management
scholar Rod Kramer contends that while trust is agreed to be an important concept, its precise
definition is not universally agreed upon. Trust is generally thought to be a general attitude
or expectancy about trust (Luhmann, 1988). Lewis and Weigert (1985) define trust as the
undertaking of a risky course of action of the expectation that the other person will act
dutifully. Management scholar Andrew DuBrin (2000) described the process of creating
trusting relationships between management and employees through openness and meaningful
exchanges. Public relations scholar Joy Chia (2005) affirmed that “trust and commitment are
byproducts of processes and policies which are designed to make the relationship satisfactory
for both parties, such as open, appropriate, clear and timely communication” (p. 7). Trust
can be conveyed through effective communication (Mishra & Mishra, 1994) via openness
and concern. Kirkpatrick and Lock (1991) define openness in terms of employee perceptions
21
of a leader’s openness and honesty and their ability to foster innovation and bring about
positive change.
In addition, Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo (1983) describe the actions between
employees and an organization as a cultural “performance” that provides the executive the
opportunity to show personal strength, or the strength of their character as a way to build
openness in the organization, as well. Leaders who are more clear and open in their
communication foster greater trust by their subordinates (Mishra, 1996). Previous research in
the management discipline has found that trust is positively related to organizational
commitment in a variety of organizational contexts (Aryee, Budhwar & Chen, 2002;
Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997; Brockner, Spreitzer, Mishra, Hochwarter,
Pepper, & Weinberg, 2004).
These public relations and management studies demonstrate the importance of
communication efforts in building trust. What has not been explored are the specific
communication methods that are most effective to building those trusting relationships. In
addition, there is a need to understand how these efforts to use effective communication are
able to build trust and impact employee commitment. The management literature focuses on
how trust builds commitment, but fails to acknowledge the role of communication in those
efforts.
Commitment
For years, loyalty was one aspect of relationship building that was not able to be
operationalized in such as way as to be quantified, but managers knew intuitively was a
worthy goal. Loyalty is defined as a positive feeling of attachment to an organization,
whether or not one works for the organization or is one of its external publics (Meyer &
22
Allen, 1997). Commitment, on the other hand, emphasizes the role of attachment felt by
employees and their desire to remain employed by the organization. Organizational
consultant Fred Reichheld’s (1996) study demonstrated that it cost more to gain new
customers and employees than to retain existing ones. More recently, Reichheld (2001)
defined truly loyal employees as those who have “responsibility and accountability for
building successful, mutually valuable relationships” (p. 12) with customers. One of the
organizations Reichheld highlights is Dell computer. Michael Dell comment reflects the
importance of personal empowerment and accountability: “You need to engender a sense of
personal investment in all your employees—which comes down to three things:
responsibility, accountability, and shared success. Mobilize your people around a common
goal. Help them to feel part of something genuine, special and important, and you’ll inspire
real passion and loyalty” (p. 35).
Commitment is used interchangeably with loyalty, although commitment conveys a
more permanent state. In particular, Meyer and Allen (1997) noted that “committed
employees are more likely to remain in the organization than are uncommitted employees”
(p. 11). They identified three types of commitment: affective, continuance, and normative
commitment. Affective commitment is a desire to maintain membership in an organization
based on an emotional attachment, an acceptance of or identification with the organization’s
values, and an involvement in the organization. They reported that “employees with strong
affective commitment to the organization work harder at their jobs and perform them better
than do those with weak commitment” (p. 28). Continuance commitment is “an awareness of
the costs of leaving the organization” (p. 11). Finally, normative commitment refers to a
feeling that an employee “ought to remain with the organization” (p. 11). Overall, Meyer
23
and Allen (1997) demonstrate that affective commitment provides the strongest indicator of
performance outcomes on the organization. Although they focus on the effect of
management practices on commitment, they highlight the need for more of a focus on the
role of communication in building commitment.
A feeling of commitment by employees can have a positive effect on the external
reputation of the firm. Black (2004) found that employees who were not committed to their
firms, acted to hide their affiliation with their employer, resulting in a negative reputation for
that firm.
Reputation
There is debate among public relations practitioners and scholars whether or not
reputation is something that can be “managed” (Hutton, Goodman, Alexander, & Genest,
2001). Yang and Grunig (2005) assert that reputation and relationship have similarities but
distinctions should be drawn between terms. This distinction is important to the theory of
relationship management because the goal is to manage important relationships with key
publics. The ultimate result of a well-managed relationship should be a positive firm
reputation.
Public relations scholars James G. Hutton, Michael B. Goodman, Jill B. Alexander
and Christina M. Genest (2001) asked Fortune 500 practitioners to rank eight goals in their
corporate communications efforts: “managing reputation” lead other public relations roles,
with “manage relationships with publics” trailing behind in seventh place. They also note,
however, at that time, no public relations textbooks incorporated reputation management as
part of the definition. These authors questioned whether public relations practitioners can
really manage the reputation of the firm, considering reputation is made up of a public’s
24
evaluation of all of the firm’s activities, many of which public relations professionals have no
control over. Reputation is an additional area that requires further study, to determine
whether or not effective management of employee publics in turn leads to a positive firm
reputation. Such a finding would provide evidence that public relations professionals can
have some control over firm reputation.
Advertising Industry Association executive Joe Plummer (2005) identified corporate
reputation as an important area for marketing communication scholars to renew their research
efforts, with the loss of the public’s trust in the credibility of American corporations.
Management scholars Charles Fombrun and Mark Shanley (1990) recognized that firms
serve multiple publics, each of which “selectively attend to different informational cues, or
signals, in judging its effectiveness” (p. 234). They suggest that reputations are a cumulative
assessment of the publics’ judgments over time. Those judgments include information about
a firm’s profitability, as well as other non-economic factors, such as how they demonstrate
their concern for society. They determined that non-economic factors have an equally
important impact on firm reputation as economic factors. For instance, they found that
profitable firms such as Pepsi had lower than expected reputation ratings. This assertion
suggests that publics rely on multiple information cues for information regarding firm
reputation and include a variety of factors in their reputation judgment. Yang and Grunig
(2005) successfully demonstrated that the result of an organization’s relationship with its
publics will impact its reputation and organizational performance.
One method for analyzing a firm’s reputation is to use the Fortune’s “Most Admired”
annual ranking of companies by reputation. Hutton et al. (2001) used the Fortune ranking as
a reputation outcome and correlated this indicator with their survey items. They found that
25
“companies with certain corporate communication philosophies were more likely to have
strong reputations” (p. 255). Because the Fortune ranking is an accepted method for
analyzing reputation, this will be used in this study, as well.
This chapter explicates the terms that are important for understanding the role and
function of relationship management. The following chapter discusses the concept of
relationship management as a theoretical foundation for the study of an organization and its
employee public.
CHAPTER 3
THE CONCEPT OF RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to define the theoretical basis for this dissertation:
relationship management. This chapter will review the studies that have employed this
theoretical concept and will show how this theory could be applied more broadly to include
employees as a significant public.
Relationship management is the focused attention of public relations professionals to
create mutually beneficial relationships with their publics, including customers, investors,
and the community (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). According to public relations scholars
Glen Broom, Shawna Casey, and James Ritchey (2000), “Relationships represent the
exchange of information, energy, or resources” (p. 15). Public relations scholar Dean
Thomlinson (2000) defines a relationship as “a set of expectations two parties have for each
other’s behavior based on their interaction patterns” (p. 178). While public relations has
always had a focus on managing its publics (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1994), only with
public relations researcher Mary Anne Ferguson’s (1984) call to focus on the relationship
with those publics has the concept and practice of relationship management grown. Rather
than merely focusing on garnering public attention as early practitioners practiced public
relations, this relatively new focus is on building long-term relationships for the benefit of
both parties. Public relations scholars Dean Kruckeberg and Kenneth Starck (1988) argued
27
that “public relations is best defined and practiced as the active attempt to restore and
maintain a sense of community” (p. xi).
Ledingham and Bruning (2000), who established the concept of relationship
management, identify several concepts or “dimensions” (p. 58) of relationship management.
Those concepts are openness, trust, involvement, investment, and commitment. Mishra
(1996) identified openness as a key aspect of how trust is built between people and/or
organizations. Involvement, investment, and commitment are similar to the concepts of
affective and continuance commitment, as articulated by management scholars John Meyer
and Natalie Allen (1984). Thus far, relationship management has focused on external publics
such as investors, customers, and the community-at-large, but this concept has value for the
study of internal public relations, as well. Employees are becoming a more important public
for organizations to consider in their mix of integrated marketing communications, both
internally and externally. Employees are identified as a more credible source of information
by customers (Keller & Berry, 2003) and they themselves are finding their roles outside and
inside of work overlapping, as they become activists and investors (Gronstedt, 2000). The
next section will address the importance of communication in the practice of relationship
management. The relationship management concept is large in scope, and employee
communication makes up one part of that concept.
The role of communication
Harvard Business School professor emeritus Richard Walton (1969) was among the
first to identify the importance of communication in an organization-public relationship,
calling it “the most significant factor accounting for the total behavior of the organization.”
In addition, he suggested that “the dynamic of the organization can best be understood by
28
understanding its systems of communication” (p. 105). Public relations researcher Carl H.
Botan (1992) also advocated a focus on communication as the center of building
relationships with publics. In addition to identifying the importance of positive organization-
public communication, public relations researcher Laurie Wilson (1994) conceptualized
those positive communications between an organization and its publics, and conceptualized
those positive relationships that result as corporate social responsibility. Specifically, she
identified the significance of perceptions employees and other publics have about honesty,
commitment, trust, and mutual respect. Public relations scholars J. N. Capella (1991) and
David Dozier (1995) suggested that the relationship could be best characterized by how the
parties communicate with each other. If organizations practice excellent public relations
(Grunig, 1993), then their communication efforts must allow for two-way communication
and not just one-way communication. If this assertion is true, then we should be able to
measure communication going both ways—outward from the organization to its publics and
back from its publics to the organization. Thomlinson (2000) would suggest that a two-way
method of communication between two publics would be of a transactional nature in which
each party sends and receives messages to the other, whether intended or not. Grunig and
Huang (2000) contend that we must consider the two-way nature of communication in
relationship management and recognize its importance on both the organization and its
publics in building relationships with each other.
Many scholars have focused on the importance of communication in relationship
management. Ledingham’s and Bruning’s (2000) study of a telecommunications company
found that a managed communications program can influence perceptions of the organization
as well as affect the behavior of public members. Specifically, they found that “when the
29
organization engages in action and communication that facilitates a sense of openness, trust,
commitment, involvement, and investment, it builds the symbolic and behavioral
relationships with key publics that J. E. Grunig (1993) contends are critical to effective
organizations” (p. 65). Bruning and Ledingham suggest that communication be used as a
vehicle in building all phases of a relationship from initiation to repair. Other scholars agree
that communication is important for organizations in building successful relationships with
its publics. Rosenfeld, Richman, and May’s (2004) study of field and headquarter employees
argued that in order to build trust and mutual gain, organizations must work to develop
constant and sufficient communication. They found that organizations must, first and
foremost, determine what information should be communicated to employees, rather than
focusing on how much communication is necessary. They also suggested that an
organization consider how to most effectively disseminate that information as well as how to
solicit feedback from employees. Public relations scholar Elizabeth Toth (2000) also
contends that successful relationships between an organization and its publics are established
and maintained through interpersonal communication.
In his call for public relations to become more globally professional, public relations
scholar Dean Kruckeberg (2000) identified the advances in communication technology as
impetus for making the community building aspect of public relations even more important.
Management scholars Dick Daft, Robert Lengel, and Linda Trevino’s (1987) theory of media
richness can enhance this understanding of how communication technology affects an
organization’s communication with its publics and ultimately its sense of community as a
public because public relations scholars have not stopped to consider what the best methods
are of communicating various types of information to its publics, whether externally or
30
internally, such as employees. If an organization better understands the communication
methods that publics prefer, they will be able to build greater levels of trust in those
relationships through those trusted communication channels and methods.
The importance of trust
Trust is defined a willingness to be vulnerable to others (Granovetter, 1985; Lewis &
Weigert, 1985), based on the prior belief that those others are reliable, honest, competent,
and benevolent (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Public relations scholars James
Grunig, Larissa Grunig, and William Ehling (1992) were among the first to propose that
many attributes led to the cultivation of relationships with publics, including “reciprocity,
trust, credibility, mutual legitimacy, openness, mutual satisfaction, and mutual
understanding” (p. 83) as the most important concepts to measure in building strategic
relationships with an organization’s publics. Trust has been found in previous research to
improve and repair relationships between organizations and organizational members (e.g.,
Mishra, 1996). Vercic and Grunig (1995) also identified trust as contributing to the longevity
of an organization.
Grunig and Huang (2000) contend that successful relationships between an organization
and its publics emerge from mutual trust. Kruckeberg (2000) suggested that shared values
can contribute to building trust in a relationship thereby ultimately reaching a strategic
objective. Bruning and Ledingham (2000) called for research into a more complete
definition of trust. Although there has been a great deal of research on trust in both the
public relations and management literatures, there does not seem to be consensus about the
specific definition of trust or how trust is built. Specifically, communication is seen as
contributing to the development of trust, but its form or development has not been agreed
31
upon. This study will examine which communication methods are perceived as more
trustworthy by employee publics, which will contribute to a greater understanding of how
trusting relationships are built through communication.
Employees as publics
There is a need for public relations research to consider employees as an important
public. Huang (1997) defined organization-public relationships based on their exchanges of
communication, trust, satisfaction, influence, and commitment. Grunig, Grunig and Dozier
(2006) declared that by identifying which publics are most critical an organization can
become more effective.
Employees are an important public but are often overlooked by organizations in favor
of external publics such as customers. Grunig (1993) indicated that good relationships with
employees led to job satisfaction, which Grunig and Huang (2000) said helped ensure
employers actively work toward fulfilling the mission of the organization. Wilson (2000)
also identified employees as important publics to consider in relationship management
theory. In addition, Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2006) found that organizations that
empower employees and other stakeholders place a higher value on public relations. They
also found that empowered employees will be more likely to participate in decision making
and symmetrical communication both internally and externally with customers. Similarly,
public relations scholars Samsup Jo and Sungwook Shim (2005) found that employees who
receive positive communication from management are inclined to form more trusting
relationships with them.
32
One method for studying employees as publics is to ascertain the degree of mutuality
in the relationship with the organization. Ledingham (2006) suggested that “mutuality is the
concept upon which long-term organization-public relationships are constructed” (p. 477).
Finally, it is important to understand the impact the trusting communication with
employees has on the firm’s reputation. Public relations scholars Yang and Grunig (2005)
contend that what publics think of a firm is the firm’s reputation. In their study, they found
that relationship management leads to a positive reputation. The effect of relationship
management on reputation is not widely studied, however, especially from the viewpoint of
the employee public.
The role of reputation
James E. Grunig (1993) found that reputation is an outcome of relationship
management because reputation is how an organization’s publics perceive of it. International
public relations scholar Elizabeth Dougall (2005) described the importance of the “public
opinion environment” as it measures the regard or esteem held by publics (p. 210). This
“public opinion environment” is the sum of judgments about a firm and affects the firm’s
reputation. Other research found that organizations should not just be concerned with their
reputations with external publics, but with their employees, as well. Public relations scholar
Leeora Black (2004) found in her dissertation research that when a banking organization was
not working in the best interests of both its employees and the community, employees were
embarrassed to be found working for that firm, as evidenced by the fact that they removed
their bank insignia clothing before leaving work so that the general public would not know
where they worked.
33
Indeed, organizations are scrutinized publicly for whether or not they are being good
corporate citizens. One study found that customers consider a firm to be socially responsible
if it first takes good care of their employees. Pratt (2006) identified what he calls a
“responsibility gap” between what an organization does and what a public thinks it ought to
do. Pratt suggests that “it is imperative that organization take stock on how their programs
affect both their reputation and their profit margin” (p. 272). A study by the National
Consumer’s League (2006) found that consumers believe that firm’s should prioritize
employees above charitable acts. This commitment by an organization to its employees will
likely result in mutual commitment by employees back to the organization.
The role of commitment
There is limited research on the role of commitment between an organization and its
publics. Grunig and Huang (2000) see the level of commitment as a barometer of the health
of the relationship. Meyer and Allen (1997) found that affective or emotional commitment
as well as continuance commitment built trust between parties. Therefore, it is expected that
feelings of mutual trust will lead to feelings of commitment both by employees and the
organization.
Summary
Hence, the literature exposes a number of areas that need additional attention through
scholarly research. First, in the theory of relationship management, many scholars have
focused on the important role that communication plays in building those relationships, yet
have not specifically defined what types of communication are most effective. Second, trust
has been found to be a critical outcome of building those relationships, yet the process of
how trust is built also has not been defined. Third, most relationship management literature
34
stresses the importance of building relationships with external publics and this study will
examine the internal public of employees. Fourth, limited research has been done to
demonstrate the outcome of commitment as a result of these relationship management
efforts, and more can be done to assess what motivates an employee to be committed to an
organization. Finally, the role of reputation is important because the way employees are
included as an important public has been found to influence customer perceptions of
satisfaction with the organization (Sparks, Bradley, & Callan, 1997).
Therefore, as seen in the theoretical model in Figure A, it is expected that rich
communication between an organization and its employee public will lead to enhanced trust
and commitment on the part of employees, which in turn will lead to a positive reputation for
the firm. This model leads me to consider the following research questions and hypotheses.
Figure A. Theoretical Model
Firm
Reputation
Employee’s
Trust in the
Organization
or Top
Management
Team
(TMT)
Commitment
Perceived Rich
communication
sent to employees
Opportunities to
communicate for
employees
35
Research Questions
Based on a review of the previous literature, the following research questions are
proposed.
RQ: How do organizations communicate with employees to create trusting
relationships with employees?
RQ: How do organizations communicate with employees to create a sense of
commitment with employees?
RQ: How do organizations communicate with employees to create a positive
reputation with employees and with customers?
In addition, the following hypotheses are proposed.
H1: Employees are more likely to receive rich communication from their managers
when their firms convey new product information.
H2a: Employees’ perceptions of control mutuality will be positively related to their
sense of a communal relationship.
H2b: Employees’ perceptions of control mutuality will be negatively related to their
sense of an exchange relationship.
H2c: Employees’ perceptions of communal relationships will be negatively related to
their sense of an exchange relationship
H3: A higher use of internal communication with employee publics will be positively
related to employee trust in the organization.
H4: Internal communication with employee publics enhances employee commitment
to the organization.
36
H5: Internal communication with employee publics results in a stronger firm
reputation among internal publics.
H6: Trust will be positively related to commitment.
These research questions and hypotheses will be explored and tested using a mixed-
methods approach of interviews and surveys. The particulars of the method and procedure
are detailed in the following chapter.
CHAPTER 4
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This study uses a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods (or mixed-methods) to
examine the research question and hypotheses. The study began with in-depth interviews
with managers and employees to better understand the current climate of communication in
the organizations. Interviews provide a basis for understanding the organization, the
language they use, as well as to better understand the issues examined in the employee
surveys. Employee surveys provide a breadth of understanding not available through
interviews. The mixed-methods approach, while more time-consuming, provides a richer
interpretation of the phenomena being studied due to the complementarity of the qualitative
and quantitative approaches. Each approach is described in the sections below, beginning
with the qualitative component of the research.
Qualitative Research
Denzin and Lincoln (2000) describe qualitative research as “a situated activity that
locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretative, material practices that
make the world visible” (p. 3). Denzin and Lincoln stress the value placed on ascertaining
how participants make meaning. This approach is important in order to understand the
nuances of communication, trust and commitment that are not easily
38
discovered through quantitative analysis. Geertz (1973) described the strength of qualitative
research as getting at “thick description” (p. 6), or better understanding the context of the
issue(s). In addition, qualitative research is useful for theory building prior to theory testing
with surveys (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003).
Three research questions form the basis of this qualitative research.
RQ1: How do organizations communicate with employees to create trusting
relationships with employees?
RQ2: How do organizations communicate with employees to create a sense of
commitment with employees?
RQ3: How do organizations communicate with employees to create a positive
reputation with employees and customers?
This study features in-depth interviews with executives and employees from several
organizations about their perceptions of the importance of the link between internal and
external communication, namely how effective internal communication builds trust and
commitment that employees then share through their relationships with external customers.
I conducted six executive interviews and four employee interviews. All interviewees
consented to participate. While executive interviews sought to understand how executives
believe employees view internal communication, the employee interviews provide a better
understanding of how employees perceive internal communication.
Participants
The following executives participated in this study: the Vice President and
Communications Manager for a large financial services institution, the Internal Corporate
Communications manager of a software firm, a District Manager of a global retail firm, and a
39
Vice President of Corporate Communications for an energy firm, the Employee
Communications manager for a utility firm, and the corporate secretary for a manufacturing
firm. These organizations all appear to approach employee communication in a proactive,
positive manner based on initial discussions and interest by these organizations, as well as by
the fact that they are often referred to in the business press as examples of firms with positive
reputations, as evidenced by the fact that two of the firms are ranked in Fortune’s “Most
Admired” ranking for 2006.
Data Collection and Recruitment
Interview data was collected both in-person and via phone. Phone interviews are less
expensive and more cost-effective, yet they fail to provide the nuances and subtleties of body
language that are most effective in in-person interviews (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003). Both
options were offered to participants because they are geographically wide-spread and their
schedules made it difficult for us to meet in person. Three of the six executive interviews
were conducted via phone due to travel distance, one was conducted via email, and the
remaining two interviews were conducted in person. Interviews were recorded and
transcribed for analysis.
All executive participants were recruited via email. Interviewees will receive a
personal email note of invitation to participate (Form G). Survey participants received an
invitation to participate via their intranets or through email (Forms H and I). The invitation
email introduced myself and my research and invited them to voluntarily participate in an
interview about communication in their organization. It asked for their reply to participate to
set up a convenient time and place to meet and discuss communication in their organization.
Interviewees were contacted once for an invitation, once to set up a mutually convenient time
40
to talk, and once to be thanked for their participation. All of these contacts were made via
email.
The interviewees are from Charlotte, North Carolina; Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina; Durham, North Carolina; Butner, North Carolina; Raleigh, North Carolina; and
Atlanta, Georgia. There were no inducements for interview participation.
All employee interviews were recruited in person and conducted at their place of
employment.
Consent
Consent was obtained from interviewees prior to conducting the interviews. See
Consent Form A.
Qualitative method
In order to better understand how employees feel about organizational
communication, in-depth interviews were conducted with six managers from different
organizations and four employees from one retail organization. While Denzin and Lincoln
(2000) have said that “we live in an interview society” (p. 633), the in-depth interview was
chosen as the method to use that would best get to the viewpoint of the participants. The
interviews were conducted one-on-one, audio-taped, and transcribed for analysis. Each
interview lasted no more than one hour. Each person who agreed to participate was invited
to talk at a time and place convenient to both them and myself. The interviews were
conducted in either their office, on the phone, or another setting that was mutually agreed
upon by the interviewee and the interviewer.
After signing the consent form, the semi-structured interview questions (Fontana &
Frey, 2000) ask (see Appendix B) about their employment at their organizations and how
41
their organizations communicate with employees on a daily basis. With the semi-structured
interview, primary questions were the same for each participant, and the interviewer took
opportunities as they presented themselves to ask each interviewee to expand on specific
answers they gave that were unique to their understanding and interpretation of their job
using probes or prompts. This unstructured interviewing style “attempts to understand the
complex behavior of members of society without imposing any a priori categorization that
may limit the field of inquiry” (p. 653). Hence, allowing participants to define their use of
terms and explain their processes and meanings is one of the strengths of using a qualitative
research method.
Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the respondents. All interviewees are
be volunteers and were thanked with a personal, hand-written note. I approached our time
together as one who wants to learn, and not one who has all of the answers. Participants
were offered results from the study, if interested.
Qualitative Data analysis
Interview data from the two groups of interviewees (executives and lower-level
employees) were analyzed separately because they are drawn from two separate groups of
employees who are at different levels of the organization. The qualitative data were analyzed
using an analytic induction technique. That is, the qualitative data were analyzed from the
perspective of relationship management theory, as opposed to grounded theory, in which the
research begins with no specific theory in mind.
As qualitative researcher Grant McCracken (1988) suggests, the objective of
qualitative analysis is to determine the categories and relationships that exist in the
interviewee data, based upon an understanding of the theory that is being tested as well as
42
based on the interviewer’s own self-awareness. The investigator must be prepared to
understand the data in light of the theory being tested, look for negative cases, as well as be
open to new interpretations of the data (McCracken, 1988). This new perspective, including
an analysis of negative cases, helps to add to theory.
Cluster Analysis
The interview data were coded using cluster analysis (Foss, 2004). Cluster analysis is
a subset of rhetorical analysis. Foss describes rhetorical analysis, as an “attempt to create
identification by naming or defining situation for audiences. It may provide a vocabulary of
thoughts, actions, emotions, and attitudes for codifying and thus interpreting a situation” (p.
70). Foss describes the benefit of rhetorical analysis is that we can decode or make sense of
the terms that others use to describe their reality.
In this cluster analysis, first, the interviews were analyzed for key terms used by the
participants, which are known in qualitative research as emic terms of phrases. Key terms
were selected based on both frequency and intensity, which represent how strongly the
interviewee feels about the particular subject. Second, the interviews were mapped for other
terms clustered around the key terms, such as those that are found nearby a key term or that
may connect to a key term. These terms might be found near each other because they explain
each other, further define each other, or because they explain a cause-and-effect relationship.
For instance, employees might use talking and listening in close proximity to explain that
they feel more like talking when they feel their boss is listening. Finally, the analysis
examined patterns of association or linkages to identify which clusters are most interesting or
of greatest importance for the participants. Again, a pattern of intensity or frequency might
help explain which explanation has the most value for analyzing the interview data. Finally,
43
once this cluster analysis was finished, a visual representation of the data was laid out in
order to “see” the patterns of association and linkages. Northcutt and McCoy (2004) call this
a system influence diagram, or mindmap, which is a “visual representation of an entire
system of influences and outcomes” (p. 48). They describe this as a method for “seeing”
how the links in system work together and might be changed if one component is modified.
Mindmaps.
This study will present mindmaps for each set of interviews—one for the employee
interviews and one for the executive interviews. In order to understand the relationship
between these two sets of employees, a collective map will be drawn to demonstrate the
points of similarity and dissimilarity between the interviewees.
Quantitative Research
Quantitative analysis is used to test theory. It has the strengths of asking a consistent
set of questions of each respondent, in order to test the differences across respondents.
Surveys are effective for understanding the attitudes, behaviors and beliefs of respondents,
and are able to be distributed without any geographic constraints. In addition, surveys permit
the collection of mass amounts of data at relatively low costs. Surveys do have some
weaknesses, however, including no flexibility in the questions asked, and the difficulties in
locating appropriate samples (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003).
An electronic survey of employees will examine the role that internal communication
plays in employee relations and how it correlates with trust, commitment, and reputation.
Surveys across organizations will provide a much richer understanding of how different
organizations, though with a similar outlook, might approach communication in different
ways.
44
This study utilized online surveys and there are varying opinions as to the strengths
and weaknesses between using paper or online surveys. An anonymous author at the
University of Texas (2006) identified the following strengths and weaknesses of online
surveys. The strengths include reduced material costs, the respondent may feel less inhibited
if not responding in a group, and the time required for data entry and analysis is usually
reduced, producing faster results. The strengths of using an online survey are balanced by
their weaknesses which include a lower response rate, anonymity is somewhat harder to
guarantee, some technical ability is required to format the survey and related database,
respondents may need additional instruction or orientation before they are able to complete
the survey, technology failures are possible, and responses may be more difficult to modify.
Statistical method.
The survey was sent to 300 employees. The survey data was analyzed using SPSS
software that analyzes statistical data. In addition to assessing frequencies and means,
correlation and regression analyses were used to determine what relationships exist between
the variables being studied. Correlation analysis ensures that the concepts being studied are
distinct from one another. Regression analysis demonstrates how a change in one variable
affects the others.
Participants.
The participants include employees from one retail firm and executives from all six
firms whose executives are participating in the interviews, a software firm, an energy firm, a
retail firm, a utility firm, a manufacturing firm, and a large financial services firm. While
employees were not coerced into participating, they were self-selecting whether or not to
45
participate, based on things such as their mood or their time availability, which may limit the
generalizability of these findings (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003).
Consent.
Implied consent was obtained from the survey participants as they begin the survey
process. When they click on the link for the survey the first thing they saw is a description of
the study and the implied consent paragraph outlining their rights as participants. They were
informed that by continuing to participate in the survey, they were indicating their consent.
They were also informed that the survey was voluntary and that they could quit at any time.
Finally, they were informed that their comments will be confidential and analyzed in
aggregate so that no one may see their individual responses. See Consent Form C.
Recruitment.
Survey participants received an invitation via their intranets or through email to
voluntarily participate in an online survey (Forms H and I). The invitation explained the
purpose of the study and how their viewpoints will help further an understanding of the
importance of employee communications in reputation management. Additionally, the
potential pool of participants were alerted of their rights to participate or not, and the option
to discontinue their participation or skip questions if they so desire. After they agreed to
participate by replying to the email invitation, they were then be contacted via email once
more with instructions on how to complete the on-line survey, which they completed from
their own offices or from home. There were no inducements for the employees to participate
in the survey.
46
Data Collection.
Survey data was collected using Zoomerang’s (www.zoomerang.com) electronic
survey program which is used extensively by individuals and organizations to collect data on
a variety of topics. This researcher and the respondents found Zoomerang easy to use. Data
will be kept confidential because access to it will require password protection both to access
Zoomerang as well as to access my personal laptop. Analysis will be done in aggregate, and
no identifiers will be included in data collection that could expose a subject’s identity.
Data Analysis.
Statistics provides a way of analyzing opinions at one point in time and provides a
method for organizing and understanding information more easily (Salkind, 2004). Survey
data is helpful because it provides a “general ‘feel’ for what the data show” (Hansen et al.,
1998, p. 300). While statistical analysis is useful for providing a method for “discovering
relationships and differences” (p. 312), the researcher is still responsible for the final analysis
of the data. Data analysis includes descriptive statistics, along with correlation and
regression analyses to interpret the survey data.
The survey features questions previously validated by other authors which are
modified and expanded in this study. To answer the first hypothesis, “Employees are more
likely to receive rich communication from their managers when their firms convey new
product information” questions from Daft, Lengel, and Trevino (1987); and Trevino,
Webster, and Stein (2000) were modified and adapted. Those questions are:
47
When your company communicates to you about new products,
services, or initiatives…
1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree
1. My manager uses face-to-face communication. Media
Richness 1
2. My manager uses the telephone to communicate. MR2
3. My manager uses email to communicate. MR3
In general, how much do you agree or disagree with these
statements:
4. My manager understands customer’s needs well. Relational
Perform/
Org-Public
5. My manager understands employee’s needs well. Rel Perf/
Org-Pub
6. My manager cooperates with us to help do the job well. RP2
7. My manager provides valuable feedback. RP3
8. My manager makes recommendations for continuous improvement on an
ongoing basis.
RP4
To what extent would you characterize face-to-face communication
as having the ability to:
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
9. Give and receive timely feedback
10. Provide non-verbal feedback (facial gestures, posture, etc.)
To what extent would you characterize written communication
(such as memos or letters) as having the ability to:
11. Give and receive timely feedback
12. Provide non-verbal feedback
To what extent would you characterize electronic communication
(such as email or intranets) as having the ability to:
13. Give and receive timely feedback
14. Provide non-verbal feedback
To examine hypothesis 2a and 2b, “H2a: Employees’ perceptions of control
mutuality will be positively related to their sense of a communal relationship. H2b:
Employees’ perceptions of control mutuality will be negatively related to their sense of an
exchange relationship”, and H2c: “Employees’ perceptions of control mutuality will be
negatively related to their sense of an exchange relationship”, the Likert-scale questions of
control mutuality, communal, and exchange relationships by Grunig and Hon (1999) were
48
used. These questions pertain to issues of how both the organization and the employee
public view each other, as well as questions about the nature of their relationship.
Control Mutuality Grunig &
Hon
(1999)
To what extent to you agree with these statements?
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
15. This company and people like me are attentive to what each other say.
16. This company believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate.
17. In dealing with people like me, this company has a tendency to throw its
weight around.
Reversed
18. This company really listens to what people like me have to say.
19. The management of this company gives people like me enough say in the
decision-making process.
20. When I have an opportunity to interact with the management of this
company, I feel that I have some sense of control over the situation.
21. This company won’t cooperate with people like me. Reversed
22. I believe people like me have influence on the decision-makers of this
company.
Communal Relationships Grunig &
Hon
(1999)
23. This company does not especially enjoy giving others aid. Reversed
24. This company is very concerned about the welfare of people like me.
25. I feel that this company takes advantage of people who are vulnerable. Reversed
26. I think that this company succeeds by stepping on other people. Reversed.
27. This company helps people like me without expecting anything in return.
28. I don’t consider this to be a particularly helpful company for me. Reversed
29. I feel that this company tries to get the upper hand. Reversed
Exchange Relationships Grunig &
Hon
(1999)
30. Whenever this company gives or offers something to people like me, it
generally expects something in return.
31. Even though people like me have had a relationship with this company
for a long time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us
a favor.
32. This company will compromise with people like me when it knows that
it will gain something.
49
33. This company takes care of people who are likely to reward the
organization.
Questions modified and expanded from Grunig and Hon (1999) were correlated with
questions from Mishra (1996) and Mayer and Gavin (2006) to examine H3: “A higher use of
internal communication with employee publics will be positively related to employee trust in
the organization.”
PR/Company Trust Grunig &
Hon
(1999)
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
34. This company treats people like me fairly and justly. Integrity
35. Whenever this company makes an important decision, I know it will be
concerned about people like me.
Integrity;
faith
36. This company can be relied on to keep its promises Depend
ability
37. I feel very confident about this company’s expertise. Compe
tence
38. This company has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. Compe
tence
39. Sound principles seem to guide this company’s behavior. Integrity
40. This company does not mislead people like me. Integrity
41. I am very willing to let this company make decisions for people like me. Depend
ability
42. I think it is important to watch this company closely so that it does not
take advantage of people like me.
Depend
ability;
reversed
43. This company is known to be successful at the things it tries to do. Compe
tence
Managerial Trust Mishra
(1996)
44. My manager is straightforward with me
45. My manager is competent and knowledgeable
46. My manager does not try to get out of his/her commitments
50
47. My manager does not take advantage of me
48. My manager communicates honestly with me
49. My manager can contribute to my company’s success
50. My manager behaves consistently
51. My manager does not exploit me
52. My manager does not mislead me in his/her communications
53. My manager can help my company survive during the next decade
54. My manager is reliable
55. My manager cares about my best interests
56. My manager does not withhold important information from me
57. My manager is concerned for my welfare
58. My manager can be counted on
59. My manager can help solve important problems faced by my company
60. My manager can be trusted
Company Trust Mayer &
Gavin
2006
61. If I had my way, I wouldn't let my company have any influence over
issues that are important to me.
62. I would be willing to let my company have complete control over my
future in this company.
63. I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on my company.
64. I would be comfortable giving my company a task or problem which was
critical to me, even if I could not monitor his/her (its) actions.
65. If someone questioned my company's motives, I would give my
company the benefit of the doubt.
51
Hypotheses H4: “Internal communication with employee publics enhances employee
commitment to the organization” were examined by correlating questions from Meyer and
Allen (1997).
Affective Commitment Meyer &
Allen 1997
66. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this company
67. I enjoy discussing my company with people outside it
68. I really feel as if this company’s problems are my own
69. I think I could easily become as attached to another
company as I am to this one
Reversed
70. I do not feel like “part of the family” at this company Reversed
71. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this company Reversed
72. This company has a great deal of personal meaning for me
73. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this company
Continuance Commitment Meyer &
Allen 1997
74. It would be very hard for me to leave this company right now, even if I
wanted to
75. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted
to leave my company now
76. It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave this company in the near future Reversed
77. Right now, staying with this company is a matter of necessity as much
as desire
78. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this company
79. If I leave this company now, I would have few alternatives.
80. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having
another one lined up
81. One of the major reasons I continue to work for my company is that
another company may not match the overall benefits I have here
52
Hypothesis five: “Internal communication with employee publics results in a stronger
firm reputation among internal publics” was tested correlating Fortune’s Most-Admired
rankings as well as asking:
Describe your agreement with this statement:
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
82. My company has an outstanding reputation.
Mishra, 2006
The final hypothesis, H6 will examine the trust and commitment measures to
determine whether “Trust will be positively related to commitment.”
In addition, in order to better understand communication preferences and to
understand if there are differences between positive and negative news delivery, respondents
were asked,
83. If you are getting bad news from your manager, do you
prefer
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
84. If you are getting good news from your manager, do
you prefer
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
85. If you are giving bad news to your employees, do you
prefer using
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
86. If you are giving good news to your employees, do you
prefer using
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
Finally demographic information was requested of each respondent, such as:
53
87. What is your age?
88. What is your gender?
89. What is your ethnicity?
90. What is your level of education?
91. What company and/or industry do you work for?
92. How would you describe your job in this organization?
93. How many people are under your direct supervision?
94. How long have you worked at this company?
95. How much longer do you expect to work at this
company?
Limitations
This study has several limitations, including the measures available and access to
survey data.
First of all, this study was limited by the measures already available to study public
relations relationships, trust, and communication. To enhance validity, pre-existing measures
were used for all of the survey constructs. However, additional aspects or dimensions of
each construct may be important to fully understand commitment and reputation. In the
future, new item measures should be developed to better understand how managers talk to
employees and vice-versa as well as how those behaviors lead to trust, commitment, and firm
reputation.
Second, this study was limited by the use of both convenience and snowball
sampling. Convenience sampling was used due to the hesitation by many firms to participate
in this type of survey. The questions appeared to be rather sensitive in nature, and some of
54
the firms originally scheduled to participate in the survey ultimately declined to participate.
In order to get sufficient survey data, this author was able to secure cooperation from
executive students and alums from the University of North Carolina and Wake Forest
University as well as one manufacturing firm led by a Wake Forest University alum.
Results were similar across both sets of survey data, however, increasing the
robustness of results. This type of sampling prevents cross-analysis of firm-specific
reputation data (such as J. D. Power) with the survey data, as there are too many firms
involved in completing the survey to be able to match reputation data with survey data. In
the future, it would be beneficial to identify one large company to be able to correlate
specific survey data with specific reputation data from ACSI or J. D. Power.
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
This chapter reports both the qualitative findings from the in-depth interviews of
employees and executives and quantitative results from a survey of employees. This mixed-
methods approach was critical to understanding the nuances of the survey findings through
the qualitative stories. The interview data were analyzed using cluster analysis (Foss, 2004)
as defined in the methods section. The survey data were analyzed using SPSS statistical
software. The employee interviews were conducted first to find out how employees feel
about their companies internal communication efforts. Then, the executive interviews were
conducted to assess the level of agreement between employees and executives. Finally, the
responses from both sets of interviews were used to help select survey questions that were
administered to employees. The interview responses helped provide direction for developing
survey questions as well background for understanding the survey results. Appendix B
sheds light on the process as it unfolded.
It was hypothesized that richer (face-to-face) communication flowing two-ways
between both employees and management would enhance feelings of trust between
management and employees, ultimately resulting in stronger commitment to each other and
to the organization. As employees have been demonstrated to have more credibility with
other stakeholders than corporate communications efforts (Keller and Berry, 2003), their
opinions will influence external stakeholders to have a more positive opinion about the
56
reputation of the firm. That is, if employees are happy to be employed by the organization,
they in turn, share their positive feelings with customers and other stakeholders.
The analysis begins with the results of the employee interviews, followed by the
results of the executive interviews. Lastly, the results of the employee survey is reported.
Qualitative Results
Employee Interviews
The employee interviews were conducted in-person, recorded, transcribed, and
analyzed prior to the executive interviews and employee surveys, to better understand how
employees think about communication within their company. The employee interviews also
provided insights into what type of survey questions to use, since employees would be
completing the surveys. In addition, the employee interviews provided a platform to create
the executive questions. It became clear during the interviews and analysis what was
important to employees, and the intent of the executive interviews was to ascertain whether
or not there was a link between employee needs and company efforts.
The interview data were coded using cluster analysis (Foss, 2004). First, the
interviews were analyzed for key terms based on frequency or intensity. Second, the
interviews were mapped for other terms clustered around the key terms, such as those that are
found nearby a key term or that may connect to a key term. Finally, the analysis examined
patterns of association or linkages to identify which clusters are most interesting or of
greatest importance. To visualize the clusters, a mindmap (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004) of the
analysis was developed.
All four interviewees were young women, under the age of 30. Alex, Deserai,
Jessica, and Sharon had all worked in more than one location for a retail operation, yet at the
57
time of the interviews, were all working at the same store. Last names are not given to
preserve their confidentiality. Three are Caucasian and one is Black. Alex was from
Lebanon and so she brought an international outlook to her job. In addition, she was a shift
supervisor, which meant that she had some supervisory responsibilities while also having
duties similar to her employee. All four had worked for this retail operation for less than five
years, but had worked at multiple stores within this same chain, providing them with a
variety of viewpoints. In this type of retail firm, employees work closely together, often as a
team, to complete a customer transaction.
Using cluster analysis, several themes emerged analyzing the text of each employee
interview: talking with their manager, open-minded managers, getting feedback, the people,
and their impact on the customer. Clusters of words that described both shared and
individual world views surrounded those themes. Overall, employees focused on the
interpersonal aspect of their relationships to explain how communication works in their firm.
The themes that emerged, however, are in their own words.
Talking with their manager
All four employees mentioned the importance of being able to “talk” to their
manager. They felt that this openness allowed them to not only become better
employees, but enabled them to enjoy their job more. In one conversation, Jessica
mentioned that people often ask her what it is like working for an impersonal Fortune
500 company. She noted that despite working for a Fortune 500 retail firm, she still
feels the benefit of working for a smaller organization. Specifically, it provides an
opportunity for her to interact with her manager during her shifts.
58
A lot of people say if you’re working for a really big company you’re just a
number and people aren’t thinking of what you want and they aren’t listening.
But I haven’t found that at all. Because each store – you’re never going to
work with more than about 15 to 20 people I guess. Like at this store I think
we only have like 12 people working. You’re going to know everyone and if
you have something to talk about with your manager you’re most likely going
to work a shift with them and you can just discuss it with them right away and
every manager I’ve had has been helpful.
Sharon acknowledged that this intimate store structure did not always ensure
clear communication, however, between managers and employees.
Sometimes it trickles down through the shift supervisors like the managers
will speak to the shift supervisors and it’s up to the shifts to kind of educate
everybody else on that. Communication isn’t always that clear though.
Sometimes people get overlooked or missed. It’s not clear that you were
supposed to tell anybody else that. Communication can be a difficult problem.
When asked about the ways they communicate at work, either in person or via email,
the four employees at this retail firm all said that face-to-face communication was the way
they enjoyed talking to their manager and to each other. Jessica described her
communication with her manager as face-to-face, rather than by another communication
means, such as email. “It’s always face to face. If they had a problem with what an
employee is doing they’d definitely – like when you’re here they’d ask you to come in a little
bit early.”
All four employees explained that the managers that they had worked for had sought
them out and asked questions about how they felt their work was going. Deserei said that she
appreciated this proactive approach by her manager.
This store is so small – no emails. Which is really cool because I like – the
thing about (my company) too is it’s very easy – most of the managers are
very approachable. They actually encourage that. Like they have a day where
they set up all admin stuff and they actually encourage – they have one on
one’s with partners. Not necessarily a shift but maybe a [colleague] and you
59
can sit down and they’ll ask how you’re doing, what’s going on. That’s cool.
Recently Alex (her shift supervisor) and I had a one-on-one. She was like
“What’s going on? How do you feel?” Then she was helping me with my
PDP- kind of a thing – an outline they set up things to work towards to be an
assistant. She was like “oh let’s work on that. What do you feel you need to be
doing?”
As a shift supervisor, Alex has some supervisory duties in addition to doing the same
job duties as her employees. She communicates with her employees mostly face-to-face
through on-the-job training. She trains them and then watches them while they work to
provide feedback on what works or what does not work. She finds that the other employees
provide feedback to each other, too, so that they can all work together as a team more
effectively. She said that this is because each person’s work affects the other’s work.
Although the other three employees had positive things to say about their
relationships with their managers, Sharon was the one employee who described how
miscommunication had affected her company experience.
The same problems occur here as well like sometimes there’s
miscommunication and sometimes I think we all feel as though our opinions
and our personal interests, requests aren’t really appreciated and sometimes
you feel your work is not appreciated. But it goes both ways as well. I’m sure
managers need some encouragement once in a while.
Overall, employees said they appreciate the opportunity to talk face-to-face with their
manager. These employees articulated, however, that the degree of openness in that face-to-
face discussion depended on the willingness of their manager to engage with them.
Open-minded Managers
They all agreed that it was obvious which managers were truly “open” to a give-and-
take discussion and which mangers were not able to handle openness as well. Deserei
described the managers she has worked for as open-minded and willing to listen.
60
Whenever I have an issue, I just go to talk to them and the door is always
open. I never feel like there’s a time when I can’t. And that’s with every
manager that I’ve worked with – they’re always open-minded. That’s one
thing I would say that (my company) looks for. It’s just odd that every
manager – not odd but it’s nice that every manager that I’ve worked for I’m
able to – they’re so open-minded and willing to listen so I guess that would be
one of the things that they look for in talking. A lot of the questions they ask
are situational questions as far as manager – when you move up as manager so
I guess they see how you react. You respond to different situations. So I guess
that’s how they evaluate who they move up and who they don’t. I guess that
would be one of them is to be open minded because a lot of the managers are
pretty open minded and pretty approachable.
As a result of the communication in a store, employees said that they can figure out
quickly which managers they could trust based on how open they are in their communication,
which they feel makes them more committed to those managers. Sharon described one
manager who changed from closed-minded to open-minded in her managerial approach,
which led her to respect her manager more:
“She (the manager) really learned to listen to us and listen to what we needed
and to take that serious. It made the store better and it made us respect her
and made us get along better. It made us come to her and open up more. It
made her open up to us and become more friendly and respectful. When you
see your manager working for you and working to make your job better then
you’re going to work for them as well.”
Jessica also commented on differences between managers in how they provide
direction.
I have noticed differences when people tell me what to do. Like some
managers are better at being diplomatic like you know what, you didn’t make
that quite right. “Can I show you how to steam this pitcher of milk better?”
Then other managers aren’t good at all.
Deserai believes that good communication skills are an important managerial skill
and said she knows that her own good communication skills will help her get promoted to the
61
next level of supervision, “As long as you’re interested and you have the drive and they see
you work well…it’s just that you’re able to communicate” she said.
As a shift supervisor, Alex described her rise through the managerial ranks and her
training, which included a class in performance communication. She described her
communication style as open and honest. All four employees said that they were able to
quickly discern which managers were open-minded about communicating with employees.
The third theme that emerged from the analysis is the participants’ beliefs in the value of
asking for and receiving feedback from their managers.
Getting feedback
These four employees felt that any type communication from their manager was more
effective if it included regular feedback. Both Jessica and Sharon indicated that they
appreciated getting feedback from their bosses about how they were doing. Sharon also
noted that some managers are better than others in listening and providing feedback. “So I
think depending on what you say to the manager, management is receptive and is not
receptive.” Alex expressed gratitude to her district manager for teaching her how to give
feedback in a constructive way to her employees.
Deserai, an employee who was scheduled by her manager to be promoted to the next
level of supervision, believes that positive feedback is necessary to let employees know that
they are important to the company, regardless of how long they have been with the company.
She thinks that employees recognized, however, that communication suffered when the store
was either too busy or understaffed. Deserai worried that “management has gotten away
from giving encouragement and recognition for those old [colleagues] as well as new,”
62
because the managers were being held accountable for so many things in the store that they
became distracted from providing that necessary feedback.
A lot of the old [colleagues] feel as though they might not get the positive
feedback because the focus is on the new partners right now so we’ve got a lot
of older [colleagues] that do an awesome job every day but because they do it
every day it’s kind of expected that - “We know you do a good job – you’re
fine.” But you know sometimes they need that encouragement – not so much
feedback but they need that encouragement.
These four participants also suggested that regional differences may also play a role
in the amount and type of feedback that they received. Alex said that her own personal
communication style is more direct than most southerners, which she attributed to her
Lebanese heritage. She believes it is preferable to be honest about an employee’s strengths
and weaknesses and not to sugar-coat things so that they can also feel comfortable being
honest back to her. She thinks this is better for everyone. In addition, the other interviewees
said they noticed a difference between the southern store where they currently work and the
northern or north-eastern stores they’ve worked in. They also said that the southern store
managers are less direct in how they relate to employees so employees are more likely to be
surprised when they get constructive feedback. For instance, they noted that southern store
managers may not come out and tell you exactly what it is you are doing wrong, but will only
hint that you need to work harder. However, they feel that northern store managers are more
forthright in the way they deliver feedback and thus less likely to elicit surprise when
providing feedback.
Overall, the employees all said that they appreciated the opportunity to get feedback
from their manager on their job performance. They believe that this feedback suffers,
63
however, when a store is under stress, such as turnover. The next theme mentioned in the
employee interviews is about what they agree they enjoy most about their job: the people.
The people
Jessica, one of the youngest employees noted that, “my favorite part of working here
is the people-- the [colleagues]. I really like how I can talk to everyone and we’re all doing
the same job.” Sharon agreed,
I guess the people I work with. You get to know a lot of different people in
different areas. We have new people – there’s a guy that’s 47 years old and
he’s a really interesting guy. He’s had a lot of really cool experiences. At my
old store, there was a man who had a daughter my age and we were really
good friends. He’s a great guy – he was so fun. They also believe that face-to-
face communication among their peers was critical for achieving success with
the customer but also in making their workplace a pleasant one. Employees
believe that face-to-face communication with each other was critical to
trusting each other, completing their jobs, and influencing their customer’s
experiences.
Deserai also described her favorite part of working at her company as the people.
I love the [employees]. They’re awesome. It’s like (my company) hires really
awesome people. I guess because a lot of – in the mission statement they say
promote diversity or whatever so you’re not necessarily – there’s not a certain
type that they look for in the interview. If you have personality – actually
what it is, is it’s personality. When they interview you they want to see that
you have some personality. With that you get so many different walks of life
– like people. So it’s amazing.
They also feel that smooth communication between the employees served to enhance
their own experience as well as their customers’ experience. Deserai noted, “The way we
interact with each other, the vibe is different when you have those [colleagues] that are happy
when they come to work and they love what they’re doing.” Jessica also noted how she
enjoyed both the co-workers and customers and how it brought her out of her shell. “Oh yes,
64
I love the customers, I love my coworkers, it’s just how it’s made me be more out-going--like
I was a lot more shy when I first started working here at the job.”
Overall, the employees agreed that the favorite part of their job is the people
they interact with—both their co-workers and their customers, and they believe that
good communication is important for the work environment and the customer
environment. The final theme the employees described was the way their actions
affect their customers.
Customer impact
These employees believe their own communication style or ability would influence
their relationships with their customers. Deserai also described a connection between the
way she worked with her co-workers and how it affected their customers.
We all come from different places and we all share different experiences with
each other. So I think people see that and that they think it is an easy job. It
looks like so much fun so it must be easy. They seem to be laughing and
joking but they don’t realize we still have to be making things, cleaning up,
we have to be getting things prepared for the next person that comes in. …
but we still work and we’re back there working our butts off just to give you
100% every time you come in. Like just to make sure the store looks good
when you come in, just to make sure we have things out there when you come
in.
Alex also described the connection between creating a positive environment for both
employees and customers. She related a story about a customer she and her co-workers
named Grumpy Jim and how the staff decided that they would work harder to make Jim’s
day better each time he came into her store. “Now, Jim is not so grumpy anymore and he is
one of our favorite customers.”
Sharon noted how the positive relationships with co-workers and customers
made her job meaningful.
65
That’s the best part, the different people and how great they are. You’d never
know it. I mean like sure you know they’re nice people – people that help you
when you’re getting your coffee but when you work with them every day and
see them and develop relationships, they’re the best part.
In addition, Deserai described a connection between employee feedback and
customer satisfaction, echoing management’s claim that her retail store is a “third place”
after work and home where people choose to gather.
We give a good drink but a lot of times just from talking to customers is they
enjoy coming in and talking to the partners. They enjoy how they feel – like
this is the third place. If we’re not giving them (the employees)
encouragement behind the scenes, they don’t necessarily want to chat with the
customer.
Both Jessica and Sharon believe that this customer interaction was one of the positive
features of their job. Jessica said that she returns to (her company) each semester during
college because of the customers. “I’ve known a lot of the customers since I started here a
long time ago and they remember me. It’s just really nice to be able to talk to customers like
that. That’s why I like to come back.” Sharon agreed and said that her customer relationships
remained strong from store-to-store.
I got to know a lot of people through the store. I got to be in touch with my
community better, the customers as well – you get to be friends and hang out.
I have really good friends I’m still in touch with from my old store and I’m
sure I will from this store too.
They said they understood that their work behavior directly influenced how
customers perceived them and their company. As a result, they felt they were aware that they
were highly visible in what they said and did. Jessica described her feelings this way,
That’s the best part whether it’s interacting with my coworkers or interacting
with the customers. That’s definitely the best thing. Even if I’m in a bad
mood one day – just talking to people and forcing myself puts me in a good
66
mood because I have to. I’m not allowed to be rude to the customers even if
I’m not having a good day. It forces me even in my day-to-day life with other
activities to just remember that, “would I treat a customer that way?” No.
Alex talked about the “just say yes” campaign that (her company) implemented last
year. It was designed to make every customer experience positive, even if it meant giving a
customer a free beverage or replacing one that they thought was not up to the regular
standards.
There is no reason to say no to a customer, but there is also no reason a
grumpy customer should ruin my day. I don’t want a grumpy customer to
intrude on my interaction with the next customer, so I work hard to make sure
each customer is happy no matter what.
Overall, the employees believed that their actions on their jobs affected their
customers. They also believed that those interactions should be positive.
Summary
Overall, five themes emerged from the cluster analysis 1) talking with managers, 2)
open-minded managers, 3) getting feedback, 4) the people, and 5) customer impact. First,
these four employees described their ideal communication as face-to-face with their manager.
It was this “talking” that helped them feel connected to their manager and to their company.
This “talking” was what employees experienced with their boss, as managers at this firm
have a mandate to schedule times to talk to each employee. There were differences,
however, across managers and how they conducted these “talking” sessions. As a result, the
second theme emerged from the “talking,” as employees quickly figured out which manager
was willing to engage in dialogue with them versus the managers who enjoyed hearing
themselves talk. The third theme emerged from the employees desire to get something more
out of their “talking” sessions with their manager. These employees sought out and
67
appreciated getting constructive feedback from their manager, as it helped them feel like they
were connected to their company’s mission and making positive progress towards achieving
goals for the company and themselves. They noticed differences, however, between different
managers’ communication and feedback styles, saying that some managers were more open-
minded than others. Employees also articulated the reason they loved their job—the people
they worked with and served—colleagues and customers. This interaction with people made
their jobs feel worthwhile. Finally, the employees were very aware that a positive
communication experience could enhance not only their own work experience, but their
customers’ experiences as well. Employees understood that their job satisfaction affected
customer satisfaction.
One method for visualizing the relationships between the clusters in a qualitative
analysis is to put them in a figure. The process of analyzing clusters and relating them to the
relationship management literature are found in Appendices B and C. This illustrates some
of the process of asking myself questions to create the mindmap. Figure B is a mindmap
(Northcutt & McCoy, 2004) showing how the clusters from the employee interviews fit
together. It is clear that these employees feel that the crux of the experience lies with how
open-minded they find their managers to be. Hence, “open-minded managers” is placed at
the center of the diagram. They believe that this openness then affects the employee and
customer environments. First, it affects how well managers are able to communicate with
employees, as well as promote a sense of camaraderie among them. In addition, this open
communication fosters an atmosphere of constructive feedback in which employees want to
improve how well they do their jobs, but also to provide an enjoyable environment for the
customer. The arrows pointing outward indicate that those actions move out from the
68
manager to the employees and the customers. On the vertical plane, those communications
affect the relationship between a manager and the employee, yet on the horizontal axis, those
communications affect the relationships with both co-workers and customers.
Figure B. Mindmap of employee’s perceptions
of how communication affects personal relationships
Executive Interviews
The executive interviews were scheduled after the employee interviews were
completed. The employee interview responses were used to develop the executive questions
(see Appendix A). The employee questions centered on what made their job happy, but the
executive questions centered on the employee responses of the importance of communication
with their manager. The six executives interviewed for this study came from many different
industries and were recruited using a snowball approach. One of the executives is a graduate
of the master’s program at UNC-Chapel Hill, so she was interested in the topic and
volunteered to participate in an interview. Two of the other interviewees were recommended
by one of my committee members, and they then agreed to participate. One executive is the
Talking
Feed
back
The people Customer
impact
Open-
minded
mgrs
69
manager of the employees I interviewed and when I thanked her for allowing me to interview
them, agreed to participate in an interview herself. One executive filled in for another who
had originally agreed to participate in an interview. Finally, one executive leads a company
where I sit on its board of directors. One of the interviewees originally scheduled to
participate declined once it came time to actually conduct the interview, and two would not
to allow their interviews to be included in this study after the interviews were concluded due
to their inability in getting their interviews approved by their managers.
Not all executives were able to meet in person, and some preferred phone interviews
or the opportunity to answer the interview questions by email. For those answering by email,
follow-up or clarifying questions were sent to flesh out their responses. The text of the email
messages were used for analysis. Those interviews that were done either in-person or on the
phone were recorded, transcribed and later analyzed using cluster analysis (Foss, 2004), as
described earlier.
All executives were responsible for employee communications as a significant aspect
of their job responsibilities. These executives are:
1. Mary Beth, Vice President of Corporate Communications for a financial
services firm
2. Keith, Vice President of Corporate Communications for an energy company
3. Karen, Director of Internal Communications for a software firm
4. Sharon, Manager of Employee Communications for a utility firm
5. Katherine, Corporate Secretary with a medium-sized construction materials
firm
6. Gwen, District Manager with an international retail firm
70
Five of the executives are women and one of the executives is a man. Four of the
executives have specific responsibility for corporate or employee communications and two of
the executives have other roles which led them to affect communications in their firms.
The themes that emerged from the cluster analysis of the executive interviews were
employee engagement, managing reputation, dialogue with key audiences, separate from
marketing, owning all channels of communication, and face-to-face communication. Each
theme is presented in the sections that follow.
Employee Engagement
When each executive was asked how they defined their job or what their primary role
was, three of them, Mary Beth, Keith, and Sharon, all mentioned that they believe “employee
engagement” is one of their top priorities. They explained that employee engagement was a
fairly new way for their firms to envision their communications role, and they said this
perspective was being communicated down to them from their CEOs. All participants
believe that employees must feel they are contributing to the company’s goals to be
“engaged.” Engagement can be a process of ensuring employees understand the company
mission and “how they fit into it,” according to Keith. Similarly, Sharon said she believes it
is essential for employees “to be aware of and have access to information” in order to
become engaged employees. Mary Beth, the financial services executive, also mentioned
that dialogue with employees helps executives better understand employee needs, which can
positively affect their job performance. She believes that finding ways to build two-way
communication throughout the organization helped to build employee engagement.
If you look at our CEO’s top strategic business priorities, one of his top
priorities is employee engagement. And those have been the same for the last
several years. I think he would acknowledge and all of our top leaders would
acknowledge that if your employees are not engaged at work then you’re not
71
going to get the best product to your customers and you’re not going to
perform well. So every decision we make is through the lens of “how does
this affect our customers?” and “how does this affect our employees?”
Keith, the energy executive mentioned that when he came into his job one year ago, he
reorganized the entire corporate communications department and toyed with the idea of
making his title “director of employee engagement.”
The bigger, sort of the higher-level picture of the employee communications
role is to increase the engagement of employees into what the company’s
trying to do. Helping the employees understand what the company’s goals and
objectives are, how they fit into it, helping them buy into the strategy because
the research shows the more employees understand and feel like they’re
contributing or in line with the company strategy, the more productive they
are and the higher the morale and lower turnover.
Participants believe that effective communication is a critical element of the
employee engagement process, and they play a primary role in message development and
delivery. For example, Sharon, the manager of employee communications for a utility firm,
believes her department’s ability to properly supply their managers with helpful information
results in employees feeling fully engaged.
I feel strongly that an individual manager is responsible for ensuring his/her
employees are aware of and have access to information they need to be fully
engaged employees. The employees also have a role to actually take action to
access that information. Our role in Corporate Communication is to make the
information available and understandable.
Gwen, the district retail manager, believes that effective communication with
employees begins during the interview process. She used the term “personal learning” to
describe the capacity of employees to both acknowledge their mistakes from the past and yet
learn from them to become a better employee in the future.
You know, one of the things we were really trying to emphasize is that we
don’t expect anyone to be perfect – we always joke about – our assistant
72
manager basically asks every question like, “tell me how you messed this up,
what did you do? Tell me how you messed this up”…it’s kind of funny and
sometimes people externally have a really hard time answering those
questions because they’re under some false sense that they can’t be human.
Because if you’re able to learn from your mistakes – you know one of the
questions on the interview is tell me about a time that there was a really bad
customer service issue and you didn’t handle it right – what did you learn
from it and what would you do now? Because we have all been there. We’ve
all lost our cool and we’ve all said something stupid. It doesn’t mean we’re
bad people, but if we can’t even look back and see where we’ve made a
mistake then I don’t know how I’m going to be able to coach you to grow.
Another means of communication for employee engagement is through research.
Mary Beth mentioned that her firm conducts regular employee engagement research studies
to “listen” to employee concerns.
One of the things we ask employees about is “do you understand how the
work you do contributes to the company’s performance?” We often hear that
people need to understand how they’re contributing to the greater cause. If
they don’t understand that and they don’t have that line of sight it’s
demotivating. So that’s one of the things we look for and then we
communicate the results back out to the employees.
Karen, the Director of Internal Communications, also wants her communication
efforts to help build employee morale. “They (employees) become more knowledgeable
about the company with core communication. It even gives them a better sense of morale
about the company.” Her definition of “core” is information that is important about her
company. Her company sees the influence of managers at all levels contributing to employee
morale and so they have introduced a session on “how to communicate better” in their new
management development program.
Interestingly, Katherine, the corporate secretary in the family-owned construction
materials firm, believes that employee support will result from better communication.
Within the company managerial level employees play an important part in
relaying the corporate message in the way it was conveyed to them in order to
73
represent it best to people at all levels of the company. Without solid
communication skills gaining employee support on issues would be a major
obstacle.
Katherine was concerned that her father, the owner, was not more visible in the
monthly newsletter, such as writing his own column, which is their primary communication
vehicle with employees. “I think they want to hear from him—they want to know what he is
thinking and planning.” She believes her father seems to want the focus off of him, not
recognizing the fact that employees look to him as owner of the company, to lead the way
both in their personal interactions as well as through the newsletter.
All of these executives said they focused on finding ways to help employees
understand their place in the mission of the organization, as well as a means to reducing
turnover. Mary Beth indicated that employee engagement’s end goal was to reduce
employee turnover, and hence, increase employee commitment to her firm. As a result, her
firm’s managers are evaluated and compensated according to their ability to reduce turnover
among their employee ranks.
So they ask every leader to set a turnover goal and it would be part of what
their bonus would look like at the end of the year – whether they met their
goal or not. So they were supposed to look at their group and say ok, I
anticipate that this person is going to retire so I’m not going to count that and
there’s certain turnover you can’t control. But the turnover they could control
– they set a goal of wanting to retain 90% of their people or whatever their
goal was. And if they didn’t meet it, their bonus was negatively impacted.
Despite these advantages, some participants also see that employee engagement
presents them with challenges. Keith believes that this goal of employee engagement is such
an important part of his job and what his department does and yet he said he is having a
difficult time finding other qualified people to fill new positions for his department. He
74
believes this challenge is due to the job’s new focus on employee relations and away from
media relations that has traditionally existed at large companies.
Media is sexy and visible, but employee relations has impact. There’s all
kinds of varied defendable numbers to show that an engaged workforce is a
happier workforce and a more productive workforce so it’s worth the
investment. To that end, we end up getting into all those kinds of things from
employee meetings, web casts, you know working with senior managers on
presentations - they’re giving road show presentations to employees. Creating
feedback mechanisms for employees and again constantly evaluating our tools
to see how we can communicate to employees. Put in context the things that
the company’s doing.
Gwen also pointed out the challenge of knowing how much communication is most
effective. She feels that in her effort to contribute to “personal learning,” however, she
sometimes “overcommunicates” to her employees in an effort to empower them in building
personal relationships with their customers. She worried that sometimes she tells them more
than they might need to know and that her focus on the “big picture” might distract them
from their day-to-day operational duties.
Employee engagement or employee support was mentioned by all executives as an
important goal of their internal communication efforts. The second theme from the executive
interviews is their goal of managing their firm’s reputation.
Managing Reputation
The second priority many of the executives expressed was a focus on protecting and
managing the reputation of their company. Mary Beth said, “I feel like corporate
communications is helping a corporation manage its reputation with all of its stakeholders. I
think corporate communications is supposed to help manage and maintain the relationship
across all of those.” Keith also mentioned that managing and protecting his firm’s
reputation was a critical component of his job.
75
The corporate communication people are dealing with the issues and
reputation of the big company and making sure that you have brand
consistency and all that. I think that’s one of our most important roles.
Managing and protecting the reputation of the company; positioning the
company in the marketplace with customers, with key stakeholders, with
employees and to some extent with investors and shareholders, although that
kind of bleeds over into investor relations. What is our story and how do you
promote that story and also reputation protection? How do you protect a
company when bad things happen that threaten the image or reputation of the
company?
Mary Beth believes that her firm’s reputation, both internally and externally, is driven
by behavior and not corporate communication slogans.
The management decisions that you make about how you’re going to treat
customers and employees will determine what your reputation is no matter
what we tell the news media about it. No matter what statement we make, it’s
really about your behavior and we would always want our statements to be
honest and accurate so it starts with your behavior and the decisions you made
to determine what we can then say about them.
In contrast, Gwen, the district retail manager, bases her reputation measure on how
well a store is doing financially as well as how close they are to their customers. She
believes that the stores that do best are those with “authentic” employees who are able to be
the same selves at work as they are with friends or colleagues. “It’s not authentic if it’s not
the voice you use all the time.” She reflected on her experience at another retail operation
where the managerial norm was a controlling and abusive manner with employees. She
believed that this negative atmosphere reflected onto the relationship (or lack thereof) that
the store was able to build with customers. She believes that this authenticity in her current
firm is cultivated by the “respect and dignity” in the way they communicate with each other.
She feels like this authenticity is also evident to customers, which keeps them coming back.
76
Reputation is also an area Mary Beth counsels her internal clients about so that they
can understand “the value of the action piece”, specifically, the connection between the way
they treat both employees and customers and how this affects their firm’s reputation. She
said that her firm has been able to witness this connection through the American Customer
Satisfaction Index. Sine her firm has started focusing on behaviors, their ratings in this
index, which is measured independently by the University of Michigan, has improved. She
believes that this index has been an important tool to help leaders in her company understand
the need to focus on improved communication and service.
I think if you look at our CEO and our top leaders in the company, they
understand the value of the action piece of it because seven or eight years ago,
we had some customer service issues and it was really impacting our
reputation. In the end, before we could turn our reputation around, we had to
turn our service around and the reputation flowed from that and it took years
to dig out of that. So once we began to change the way we paved and invested
more in service, literally and figuratively, not only in terms of money but also
people and resources and processes around how we were going to measure
and incense people based on how they gave service – it took years to turn that
around but once we did, we began to see our reputation turn around as well.
Keith described the difficulty in quantifying his department’s impact on reputation.
Like Mary Beth, he finds outside research useful. If possible, he said he prefers to rely on
third-party findings from J.D. Powers.
The one thing that is hard to measure is the impact of public relations and
communications on that reputation because you can’t measure it. You’re kind
of in a vacuum. Your reputation evolves and grows and it’s all based on sort
of not just everything that your company does but things can happen around
you that maybe have nothing to do with you. A perfect example of that is what
happened to all energy companies in the post Enron era. Certainly at (my
company) we saw our reputation numbers go down. We didn’t have anything
to do with Enron but just a big energy company crook. And we saw it and we
took a hit and if you’re a corporation, you have reputation challenges just for
being seen as just you’re a “for profit” big 900-pound gorilla and you don’t
throw your weight around. So it’s kind of hard to put out messages and then
see how they will react because it’s kind of hard to say well did they react to
77
that or did they react to something else that was in the marketplace at the same
time?
In summary, the second theme that emerged from the executive interviews was a
focus on managing and protecting their firm’s reputation. The third theme identified in the
analysis of the executive interviews is their goal of promoting dialogue with their key
audiences.
Dialogue with Key Audiences
Along with managing reputations and promoting employee engagement, these
executives believed that it was their role to promote dialogue with their key audiences or
stakeholders. For example, Sharon, the utility firm employee communications manager,
described her job as promoting “dialogue from the company's leadership with various
audiences (media, key leaders, employees). We place a huge emphasis on relationships with
our elected officials and regulators. To maintain those relationships, we have to be perceived
well by our customers.” Yet, the participants generally relayed how dialogue with key
audiences had an impact on employee relations. Sharon described the importance of internal
relations as well and indicated that employee communication was critical to rebuilding trust
in her firm after a recent merger.
That cynicism is also due to the fact that Florida was acquired in the merger.
They feel the previous management team was not straight with them, and so
there's a lot of lingering distrust. In the Carolinas, most employees are pretty
happy to work for this company. The company pays well, particularly as
compared with others in some of the rural communities where our facilities
are located, so you start off with most folks feeling pretty positive.
Karen, the Director of Internal Communications for a software firm, also described
the goal of her department as “letting them (employees) know the company.” She wants her
78
efforts to help employees become more knowledgeable about the company and their place in
it.
In the retail firm, Gwen, the district manager, indicated that her company has a field
implementation manager, whose position falls between her and her boss who was responsible
for disseminating corporate communications to employees on a regional level. The other
person in her organization who contributes to the flow of communication to employees is the
Partner Resources manager. They call this the “PR” manager, even though this person’s job
is located in human resources. This “PR” manager is responsible for communication such as
conference calls to all employees or disseminating information sheets about benefits.
Otherwise, all employee communication flows through Gwen, the firm’s district manager (an
operations rather than staff position), to her managers and partners, or store-level employees.
Gwen described this communication process as being “rolled out, step-wise” from one level
down to another. She liked to call it the “snowball” approach. The type of information that
flows in this process includes information about new processes and new promotions. Even
though she worked in operations, Gwen believes communications are central to helping her
employees understand their critical role in servicing the customer.
These executives identified one of their roles as opening a dialogue with their key
audiences, including employees and external stakeholders. The fourth theme that emerged
from the executive interviews is their belief that their job is distinct from yet coordinated
with the goals and objectives of the marketing department.
Separate from Marketing
In asking each executive to describe their job and role in the organization, they were
quick to explain that their department was not marketing, yet coordinated their messages with
79
marketing, serving in what Mary Beth called “a strategic role.” The executives from the
financial services, energy, utility, and software firms all worked in corporate or internal
communications departments. They saw the world of employee communication from the
lens of its role in corporate communication, along with media relations, public relations,
customer relations, and creative which they said includes both advertising and new media. In
all of these firms, the marketing function was distinct and separate from their focus of
employee communication in their firms.
For instance, Mary Beth identified corporate communications as “managing
relationships with all the stakeholders,” and added that her department works with marketing
to make sure that information going to external publics is consistent with the firm’s internal
messages.
We would have a strategic consulting role when it came to how we
communicate with customers. You know, if there were some sort of customer
issue and we were going to provide talking points to our frontline about how
to respond to it, oftentimes corporate communications may write that or even
if marketing writes it, we would want to see it and have input into what we
were going to say. So I think it’s really about managing your relationship with
all the stakeholders. So there may be certain specific groups within your
organization - you have specific responsibility for one stakeholder or the other
– I think corporate communications is supposed to help manage and maintain
the relationship across all of those.
Mary Beth, when asked about how corporate communications and marketing work
together, summed up other participant’s feelings when she replied,
It’s considered corporate communications and we are in the same division as
marketing but we’re separate departments. We pretty specifically support – I
always tell people we support employee communications and we support
news media relations. Those are the key areas. We would partner with
marketing on things that required a more holistic integrated marketing strategy
and there may be pieces of it they would own and we would own and we
would develop the strategy together.
80
Keith also described marketing at his firm as separate from his department and as
performing more tactical than strategic activities. “The only thing I don’t have is marketing
which is a separate department which is the very specific direct customer outreach. The job
that we have is more the reputation image, brand, overall company brand. They focus more
on promoting rebates and things like that.” Later on, he described more about his thoughts of
why he believes marketing and corporate communications should be separate.
I have no problem with marketing being separate because I think –
particularly when you look at consumer products and things like that where
you’re actually selling something, the marketing folks are dealing with – not
to diminish what they’re doing but they’re dealing with packaging. Consumer
packaging and what it looks like and ads to sell. Like if you’re Proctor and
Gamble, you’re helping – they make Tide I think – how Tide looks and what
are the display ads and what kind of promotions and coupons.
Sharon mentioned that despite having a separate department responsible for external
communication with customers, she feels that her firm does a good job of making sure both
sets of messages are coordinated. “We do a pretty good job coordinating our messages so
that there is no real difference in the essence of what we say to the media or to employees.”
One executive, Katherine, as Corporate Secretary and as a management trainee,
explained that she has had a variety of responsibilities, including marketing.
During the past 2.5 years I spent a lot of time working on improving our company’s
marketing collateral. Most specifically I designed the company’s website, corporate
brochure, redesigned and edited the corporate newsletter, lead a team in
implementing imaging software, and have acted as a support person to the executive
management of the Company.
In summary, only one executive had both corporate communications and marketing
responsibilities. The other executives had responsibilities that they described as both distinct
from yet coordinating with marketing and they believed that this separation was a good thing.
81
The next theme underscores the executive’s belief that they had all channels of
communication at their disposal to share their messages with their stakeholders.
Owning all channels of communication
The executives said they are responsible for all channels of communication with
employees. Keith, the energy executive, described his firm’s approach.
For employee communications, we own all the channels to communicate to
the employees. All of our electronic communications, we have a daily
electronic newsletter. We have several other regular communications vehicles
that go out to employees from human resources and IT and things like that.
That’s one big chunk of the work – it’s managing that process of delivering
the information.
One of the tasks these executives described was working to figure out which
communication vehicles to use when and for what occasions. Mary Beth, the financial
services executive, finds that her internal “clients” whom she counsels on corporate
communication prefer to communicate with their direct reports by issuing memos either in
writing or by email. She believes, however, that there are occasions that call for a more
intimate approach, such as face-to-face communication and tries to help her clients decide
which approach is appropriate for which occasion.
Karen, the Director of Internal Communications, also provides counsel to the
executive leadership team of her company so that they can find more and better ways to
disseminate information to their employees. She asks her managers things like,
“Who is your intended audience and what is the goal of your message?” So
there you can even start to talk about well you know what, a pod cast is not
going to work for this. This can be done through an email or an email is not
going to work and certainly a story on the web’s not going to work because
we want everybody to hear your voice behind this. We want to hear the
strength of your voice behind it. It all depends on the content and the
audience.
82
She also said that she is concerned that they use the best medium for the message they are
trying to disseminate. “We make sure we use the right vehicles for the audience that we’re
trying to reach.”
Keith believes that rather than guessing how employees want to receive
communication, he has to ask them. He finds it best to ask employees how they want to
receive information on important issues. In his experience, employees want to receive any
information about their company benefits in writing, so that they can take them home, read
them over and digest them.
Well, you know, what you have to do is you really have to find out from
employees how they like to be communicated to. There’s been plenty of
research on things that are effective but what you find is there are certain
kinds of information that people like to get a certain way. For example, HR
information and benefits and things like that, most employees like to get a
printed document. If it’s to review their health plan and their benefits, we still
find that employees like to have something to look at in front of them. But if
it’s just like quick company information, announcements and things like that,
they like email or electronic newsletters.
Several of the executives mentioned that it was also important to match the medium
with the message. Sharon, the manager of employee communications, for a utility firm noted
that her firm has found that the mode of communication used depends on the circumstance
for the communication.
We've seen in our research a strong and growing preference for electronic
communication (for us that means the daily email and the intranet). However,
that format works best to inform. Major change management initiatives --
where employees actually have to take action or face radical changes to their
work -- are better done through some sort of face-to-face interaction. I think
there is also a role for print, particularly if you need to educate employees
around a particular set of issues.
Karen, the Director of Internal Communications, for a software firm also echoed the
sentiment that the communications vehicle must match the content. She also believes that
83
multiple communications methods enhance each other quite clearly. She has learned that
not all employees want to receive all of the e-newsletters that are available, so they
encourage employees to “subscribe” to the e-newsletters that they are most interested in.
We’ve just revamped our whole new internal site, we’ve added RSS feeds to
that, we’re eliminating all the newsletters that they get in their email by
putting those news links on the internet and letting them subscribe to the ones
they want to get instead of them getting everything that gets sent out. A man
here that’s fifty years old sure doesn’t want to get a newsletter from healthcare
about breast feeding. So what we’re doing is giving them the option to sign up
for what they want. He probably wants something more geared towards
retirement. So we’re giving them those options. We’re doing a lot of different
ways of channeling the communication to the employee so they get the
information that they need to know and that they want to know. I’m trying to
improve what employees are asking for. At any company we’re going to have
the same communication problems that other companies have but I think
we’ve got room to improve it.
Gwen, the district retail manager, indicated that her firm is moving towards utilizing a
variety of communication channels in order to stay in touch with employees. She believes
that this move is a result of company growth, especially when she travels so much from store
to store and when messages are coming from different sources in her company.
Well there is an expectation of information that needs to be disseminated and
how you do that is somewhat up to your style. In this age of computers–
communication has really changed. We have a lot of different communication
vehicles here at (my company). Obviously we have email. We have a
voicemail system that basically you put in my extension and leave me a
message and I call into it and retrieve the message. All the stores have access.
They have their own mailbox as well so I can leave all the stores messages.
The other thing is that we obviously – I have a home office that I have a
phone at that people can contact me at and I also carry a cell phone. One of
things that we’re really doing now is we’re transitioning much more to cell
phones and email.
So when I first started, the goal for store managers was to check voice mail
three times a day and check email once. Now it’s really check voice mail once
and check email three times because of the way it’s changed and it’s also a
much more cost effective way.
84
In summary, these executives find that they have a wide range of communication
vehicles to choose from when communicating with employees, but they also believe that it is
best to ask employees which way they want to receive specific types of information. The
next theme is the executives’ belief that despite this breadth of communication vehicles to
choose from, face-to-face communication still plays an important role in the way they
communicate with employees.
Face-to-face communication
Despite the variety of media available to these executives, they all believe in the
benefit of maintaining face-to-face communication. Karen, the Director of Internal
Communications, for a software firm said, “There is nothing better than face-to-face
communication.” Mary Beth, the financial services executive, discovered that when her firm
conducted its own in-house employee communication study, “face-to-face communication
with my boss” was the most satisfactory way employees in her firm said they wanted to get
information.
I think we would say based on what we know from social science and based
on what we know from our own surveys of employees, that the most effective
communication is one on one with your manager. And then I would say
beyond that would be in a meeting – a face-to-face meeting with your
manager and there are five to ten people there or a hundred people there. A
face-to-face meeting would be the most effective way because people get the
body language and they can make a decision as to whether or not they think
it’s credible. They can ask questions if they don’t understand something.
Gwen, the district retail manager, believes that face-to-face communication is critical
for store-level employees and their bosses. “Our whole goal is respect and dignity in how we
communicate and it translates to the partners as well as to the customers.”
Face-to-face communication with a supervisor is important in the energy and retail
firms where the employees generally do not use computers during their workdays. Keith
85
believes that the best way his firm keeps those employees “in the loop” is through direct
communication with their supervisor.
Particularly when you’re dealing with a work force like we are, where you’ve
got about 30% or more of the employees who do not have an assigned PC.
They don’t sit at a desk all day; they’re out working in the field. So unlike
those of us who are sitting at a computer all day long and an email pops up on
your screen and you read it almost immediately when you get back from a
meeting, some of these guys might check their email a couple of times a week
or something. So you either have to supplement that with print and as you
suggested face-to-face communication is the most effective in terms of getting
people to understand it. The closer you can get to their supervisor to help
being the person delivering the messages the more effective it is. There are
certain things you want the CEO and senior managers to talk about but if you
really want people to buy and believe it and they need to be hearing things and
having it echoed from their day-to-day supervisors or one level up. You really
try to equip that middle management level with the same information that
senior managers are seeing so they can sort of give it their blessing that it’s
not like b.s.
Katherine believes this intimate form of communication is also important in the
construction materials firm because most of the employees are working in the plants or are
delivering materials to their customers.
In our task-focused, operations-driven business consistent management
announcements made in weekly meetings along with the proper follow up from
management have been successful. Additionally, small groups or one on one
meetings have proven to be successful. Even a quick email from a manager when the
week’s production goals have been met can go a long way. When employees feel like
they’re important and their contributions matter they feel like a part of the Company’s
overall success. Most of the time people simply want to feel like they’re valued.
Whether it’s a quick lunch with a supervisor or a well thought out incentive program
that has the employee’s best interest at heart, good employees will sense when
management cares about them. It’s up to management to come up with creative ways
of communicating with their employees.
In summarizing the executive responses about face-to-face communication, data show
that this type of communication serves a dual purpose. First, it keeps employees informed,
and second, it keeps them secure about their place in the company.
86
Summary
Executive interviews revealed their primary goals of promoting dialogue with all of
their key audiences, managing the reputation of their company’s brand and image, along with
promoting employee engagement. The executives identified a full-range of communication
vehicles they could use to implement these goals with employees, yet believed that face-to-
face communication between an employee and his or her manager was preferred and most
effective for reducing turnover and promoting a sense of community among employees.
Finally, they saw their work as overlapping, yet distinct from the marketing departments,
which they saw as more tactical than strategic.
Figure C is a mindmap of the cluster analysis of the executive interviews. This
mindmap was created through the cluster analysis of the interviews and relating them back to
the relationship management literature. Executives frequently mentioned that the focal point
of their activities is engaging in or promoting dialogue among key audiences. Hence, this
theme is placed at the center of the diagram. The purpose of their dialogue includes both
managing the reputation of the firm and employee engagement, which is reflected in the
horizontal arrows of the diagram. In addition, the mindmap illustrates that these
communication executives have a range of communication vehicles to choose from when
communicating with employees, but that they believe face-to-face communication occupies a
distinct and important place in talking with employees, which is reflected in the diagram’s
vertical arrows.
The executive interviews corresponded more closely with the relationship
management and public relations literatures, including aspects of building relationships. The
87
mindmaps, however, utilize the words of the executives to describe those relationship
management practices.
Figure C. Mindmap of executive perceptions of their role
in promoting open communication
Qualitative Summary
Although new digital forms of communication are emerging, such as email, intranets,
and podcasts, executives believe face-to-face communication helps their firms build trusting
relationships both within and outside of their companies. Employees believe face-to-face
communication is the best way to learn from their manager and build a relationship with that
person. Executives describe internal communication as a way to build better relationships
Managing Reputation Employee Engagement
Dialogue with
Key Audiences
Communication
Own all channels
Of communication
Face
-to-
face
88
with employees, so that they feel more engaged in the mission of the organization, will want
to remain with the organization, and will share that enthusiasm with their customers.
Appendices B and C illustrate my thought process as I analyzed the employee clusters
and then the executive clusters. My goal was to synthesize these responses to create a
collective mindmap. I hoped that this would clarify points of difference and similarity across
employee and executive responses. The mindmaps were created using terms from each set of
interviewees, but it seemed clear that the employee clusters focused on communication as
part of the process of building interpersonal relationships, whereas the executive interviews
focused less on interpersonal relationships and more on how to instill a sense of employee
engagement to meet the goals of the organization or to enhance the firm’s reputation.
In order to analyze the similarities and differences across employee and executive
interviews, a collective mindmap (Figure D, Northcutt & McCoy, 2004) was developed. In
the middle of their thinking, executives see their job as opening dialogue with key audiences,
including employees, but employees believe that this type of dialogue doesn’t occur unless
they happen to work for a manager who is very open-minded. This open-mindedness affects
both the formality of communication managers have with employees as well as whether or
not they offer the opportunity for employees to get and give feedback. Executives agree that
face-to-face communication is important, but employees think of it as an opportunity to talk
with their manager. There is the potential for consensus here, if managers understand that
employees don’t want formal, stuffy communication with their boss, but are seeking informal
opportunities to talk with their boss. In addition, although executives see their ability to
communicate widely through a variety of channels, employees crave informal opportunities
89
to get and give feedback with their boss. Both talking and listening are informal methods of
communication employed by these study participants.
Finally, executives see the goals of better communication to be employee engagement
and managing their firm’s reputation. Employees agree, but see communication more from
their own perspective of enjoying the people they work with and positively affecting the
customers they serve. Again, employees view these twin goals of internal and external
engagement in a way that is much more informal than executives, yet are more focused on
the bottom line. Employees want to affect customer relationships in a positive way and see
how their own work habits and communication styles can actually improve customer
relationships. Executives seem to intuitively know what their end goal of employee
engagement entails, but don’t verbalize it as well as the employees do.
Figure D. Collective mindmap of employee (italic) and executive perspectives
Face
-to-
face
vs.
Talk-
ing
Dialogue with
key audience
vs. Open-
minded
manager
Employee engagement
vs. People
Managing reputation
vs. Customer Impact
Own
all
Chann
els vs.
Feed-
back
90
The employee and executive qualitative in-depth interviews served as a guide for both
developing the focus of the employee survey questions, but also served to interpret these
results. The employee survey results are provided next, with the analysis of those results to
follow in the next chapter.
91
Quantitative Results
The survey was administered after the employee and executive interviews were
completed. The survey questions were based on insights from the interviews as well as
established questions from the literatures on rich communication, relationship management,
publics, trust and commitment. The employee and executive interviews helped to focus the
survey questions on what type of communication methods companies used with their
employees, as well as whether employees felt as if they were treated like an important
audience to their companies. Most of the questions have been used by scholars in public
relations and management to study the concepts of rich communication, trust, commitment,
and publics. The survey was administered using Zoomerang.com, an online survey product.
The survey data were analyzed using the statistical software SPSS in order to answer the
proposed hypotheses.
Respondents
Employees who are alumni of Wake Forest University and the University of North
Carolina participated in the survey research, as well as employees from one Wake Forest
University alumni’s manufacturing firm. A total of 210 participants were invited to take the
survey and 112 completed the survey for a response rate of 39.7%. Of the respondents, 61%
are men, 39% are women. The respondents identified themselves as 93% Caucasian, 3.5%
black, and 3.5% Asian; 2.6% identified themselves as having Hispanic ethnicity. A total of
93.3% of respondents revealed their educational level. The majority of subjects, 63%,
completed a four-year degree, and another 24% had master’s degrees; 4.5% completed an
associate’s degree; 0.9% had a professional degree, and 0.9% had a doctoral degree.
92
The mean age of the respondents was 36.02, with a range from 23 to 64 years of age.
There was some confusion on the part of employees who thought of themselves as both
salaried and professional/technical or as both managers and professional/technical, so
meaningful statistics are not available on the professional/managerial categories. Only one
respondent was an hourly employee and the rest identified themselves as salaried employees.
The respondents had been with their firm for an average of 6.87 years, ranging up to 28
years, and supervised an average of 4.66 people. Each respondent planned to remain with
their current firm for an average of 11.24 additional years. For a list of firms and/or
industries participants worked for, see Appendix B. The means for the demographic
variables are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Mean demographic responses (N=112)
Mean
What is your age? 36.02 years
Range (23-64)
What is your gender? 39% F
61% M
What is your ethnicity? 93% Caucasian
3.5% black
3.5% Asian
2.6% Hispanic
What is your level of education? 4.5% Associates
63 % Bachelor’s
24% Master’s
.9% Professional
.9% Doctorate
6.7% did not report
How would you describe your job in this organization? .9% Hourly
31.2% Salaried
6.4% Supervisor
48% Manager
14% Prof/Technical
How many people are under your direct supervision? 4.66 people
93
How long have you worked at this company? 6.87 years
(range .5-28)
How much longer do you expect to work at this
company? (in years)
11.24 years
The survey data were further analyzed using SPSS software to answer the study’s six
hypotheses. Each hypothesis is addressed below.
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis states “Employees are more likely to receive rich communication
from their managers when their firms convey new product information.” Questions from
Daft, Lengel, and Trevino (1987) and Trevino, Webster, and Stein (2000) about rich
communication were modified and adapted for this study. The results show that email is the
most common method of communication used by managers (mean=5.68), followed by face-
to-face communication (mean=5.34) and finally telephone (mean=4.63). Table 2 shows the
means for each of the nine questions associated with rich communication.
Table 2. Means for rich communication (N=112)
When your company communicates to you about new products, services, or
initiatives…
Means
1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree
My manager uses face-to-face communication. 5.34
My manager uses the telephone to communicate. 4.63
My manager uses email to communicate. 5.69
To what extent would you characterize face-to-face communication as
having the ability to:
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
Give and receive timely feedback 5.96
Provide non-verbal feedback (facial gestures, posture, etc.) 5.75
To what extent would you characterize written communication
(such as memos or letters) as having the ability to:
Give and receive timely feedback 4.76
Provide non-verbal feedback 3.24
To what extent would you characterize electronic communication
(such as email or intranets) as having the ability to:
Give and receive timely feedback 5.71
94
Provide non-verbal feedback 3.40
In order to determine if the values are significantly different from each other, a one-
sample T-test was conducted. The results in Table 3 below show that the means for email
and face-to-face communication are not significantly different from one another, as their
95% confidence intervals overlap. Based on this same T-test, the mean use of telephone
communication is significantly lower than both face-to-face and email communication.
Table 3. One-Sample T-Test of rich communication measures (N=112)
Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Question 1: My manager
uses face-to-face
communication.
35.860 110 .000 5.342 5.05 5.64
Question 2: My manager
uses the telephone to
communicate.
27.124 110 .000 4.631 4.29 4.97
Question 3: My manager
uses email to
communicate.
44.393 111 .000 5.688 5.43 5.94
In examining how employees feel about the richness of the three types of
communication, the results in Table 4 show that face-to-face communication is perceived by
employees as conveying more timely as well as better non-verbal feedback than either
written or electronic communication. Integrating both sets of results, it appears that although
face-to-face communication is perceived as more rich, it is used just slightly less than
electronic and/or email communication. Even though face-to-face communication is
preferred by employees, it is used by them less then email or electronic communication.
Thus, there is mixed support for Hypothesis One.
95
Perhaps this finding reflects advancement in electronic communication. For example,
email is richer than it used to be now that it can convey pictures, sounds, results, and data
analyses.
Table 4. Means of communication richness (N=112)
Face-to-face
Communication
Written
communication
Electronic
communication
…gives and receive timely
feedback
5.96 4.76 5.71
…provides non-verbal
feedback (facial gestures,
posture, etc.)
5.75 3.24 3.40
Hypothesis 2
The Likert-scale questions of control mutuality, communal, and exchange
relationships developed by Grunig and Hon (1999) were used to examine hypotheses 2a,
“Employees’ perceptions of Control Mutuality will be positively related to their sense of a
communal relationship,” 2b, “Employees’ perceptions of Communal Relationships will be
negatively related to their sense of an Exchange Relationship,” and 2c, “Employees’
perceptions of Control Mutuality will be negatively related to their sense of an exchange
relationship.” These questions pertain to issues of how both the organization and the
employee public view each other, as well as the nature of their relationship. For each set of
questions, factor analysis was conducted to make sure that the multiple items loaded more
heavily on their appropriate constructs and that these constructs had an acceptable reliability
score. Both Control Mutuality and Communal Relationships’ reliabilities exceeded the
commonly accepted cut-off value of 0.80, whereas Exchange Relationships approached the
cut-off value (see Table 5). One possible reason for the lower reliability for Exchange
Relationships is that these questions contain several negatively-worded items.
96
Table 5. Means and reliabilities for relationships with employee publics (N=112)
Mean Std. Deviation N
Control Mutuality
4.1811
(.92)
.82627 112
Communal Relationships
4.8795
(.86)
1.12244 112
Exchange Relationships
Cronbach alphas in ()
4.2254
(.66)
1.13870 112
The correlation analysis (see Table 6) shows that both Control Mutuality and
Communal Relationships are negatively related to Exchange Relationships. The correlation
analysis also shows that Control Mutuality and Communal Relationships are positively
related with one another. This means that to the extent that employees sense that they have a
mutual control with the management of their companies, they also feel like they have a
positive relationship with them. Conversely, if they feel they have a transaction-oriented
relationship (Exchange relationship), it is negatively related to their sense of having a more
positive mutual relationship. The tables of means for all items are reported in Table 7. All
hypotheses were supported.
Table 6. Correlations among relationships with employee publics (N=112)
Control
Mutuality
Communal
Relation-
ships
Exchange
Relation-
ships
Pearson Correlation
1 .526** -.234*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .013
Control
Mutuality
N
112 112 112
Pearson Correlation
.526** 1 -.474**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000
Communal
Relation-
ships
N
112 112 112
Pearson Correlation
-.234* -.474** 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.013 .000
Exchange
Relation-
ships
N
112 112 112
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
97
Table 7. Means of employee publics constructs (N=112)
Control Mutuality Mean
To what extent to you agree with these statements?
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
This company and people like me are attentive to what each other say. 4.64
This company believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate. 4.81
In dealing with people like me, this company has a tendency to throw its
weight around. (rev)
4.18
This company really listens to what people like me have to say. 4.43
The management of this company gives people like me enough say in the
decision-making process.
4.27
When I have an opportunity to interact with the management of this company,
I feel that I have some sense of control over the situation.
4.36
This company won’t cooperate with people like me. (rev) 5.42
I believe people like me have influence on the decision-makers of this
company.
4.56
Communal Relationships
This company does not especially enjoy giving others aid. (rev) 5.36
This company is very concerned about the welfare of people like me. 4.48
I feel that this company takes advantage of people who are vulnerable. (rev) 5.16
I think that this company succeeds by stepping on other people. (rev) 5.63
This company helps people like me without expecting anything in return. 3.47
I don’t consider this to be a particularly helpful company for me. (rev) 5.26
I feel that this company tries to get the upper hand. (rev) 4.77
Exchange Relationships
Whenever this company gives or offers something to people like me, it
generally expects something in return.
4.04
Even though people like me have had a relationship with this company for a
long time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us a favor.
3.74
This company will compromise with people like me when it knows that it will
gain something.
4.00
This company takes care of people who are likely to reward the organization. 5.14
Hypothesis 3
Two different trust constructs (Grunig & Hon, 1999; Mishra, 1996) were used to test
Hypothesis 3: “A higher use of internal communication with employee publics will be
positively related to employee trust in the organization.” Testing this hypothesis was a three-
step process, including testing the trust construct for reliability, building an index of internal
98
communication, and finally correlating the internal communication index with the trust
construct.
Construct reliability for the two trust constructs was assessed first. The questions
from Grunig and Hon (1999) are labeled as “Company Trust.” The reliability for this
construct is 0.91 with a mean of 4.84, on a scale of 1 to 7. The individual means are shown
in Table 8. The survey items from Mishra (1996) are labeled as “Managerial Trust” below.
The reliability for this construct is .98 with a mean of 5.448 on a scale of 1 to 7. All
reliabilities exceed the cut-off point of .80. The individual item means are also shown in
Table 9.
Table 8. Means for company trust (N=112)
Company Trust Mean Grunig & Hon (1999)
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
This company treats people like me fairly and
justly.
5.06 Integrity
Whenever this company makes an important
decision, I know it will be concerned about
people like me.
4.25 Integrity; faith
This company can be relied on to keep its
promises
4.74 Dependability
I feel very confident about this company’s
expertise.
5.08 Competence
This company has the ability to accomplish what
it says it will do.
5.32 Competence
Sound principles seem to guide this company’s
behavior.
5.04 Integrity
This company does not mislead people like me. 4.84 Integrity
I am very willing to let this company make
decisions for people like me.
3.88 Dependability
I think it is important to watch this company
closely so that it does not take advantage of
people like me. (rev)
4.64 Dependability;
reversed
This company is known to be successful at the
things it tries to do.
5.66 Competence
99
Table 9. Means for managerial trust (N=112)
Managerial Trust (Mishra, 1996) Mishra (1996)
My manager is straightforward with me. 5.34
My manager is competent and knowledgeable. 5.71
My manager does not try to get out of his/her
commitments.
5.47
My manager does not take advantage of me. 5.35
My manager communicates honestly with me. 5.56
My manager can contribute to my company’s
success.
5.96
My manager behaves consistently. 5.32
My manager does not exploit me. 5.34
My manager does not mislead me in his/her
communications.
5.29
My manager can help my company survive
during the next decade.
5.54
My manager is reliable. 5.63
My manager cares about my best interests. 5.15
My manager does not withhold important
information from me.
4.96
My manager is concerned for my welfare. 5.36
My manager can be counted on. 5.53
My manager can help solve important problems
faced by my company.
5.53
My manager can be trusted. 5.53
In addition, the correlations reported in Table 10 show that both trust constructs are
positively and significantly related at the 0.01 level, but they are substantively different than
each other, because they capture different forms of employee trust. The mean of managerial
trust is higher than the mean for company trust, which may reflect an employee’s stronger
relationship to his or her manager than to his or her company. It might be expected that
company trust might mimic managerial trust, but this disconnect might occur because
employees relate stronger to the communication and relationship they have with their
manager more than with their companies. This relationship will be in direct conflict with the
communication executives whose job it is to bridge this gap.
100
Table 10. Correlation analysis of trust measures
Two indices of internal communication were then created. The first index was
created by additively combining the measures of face-to-face, telephone, and email
communication; the second by weighting each component in terms of its richness, and then
summing the weights. Following Daft, Lengel, and Trevino (1987), face-to-face
communication was weighted three times as heavily as written communication, and
telephone was weighted twice as much.
As hypothesized, both Company Trust and Managerial Trust are positively related to
internal communication, both weighted and unweighted for richness (see Table 11). This
finding means that the ways both managers and companies communicate with their
subordinates determine whether or not a trusting relationship develops.
Table 11. Correlation analysis of trust and internal communication measures
(N=112)
Company
Trust
Managerial
Trust
Internal Communication Pearson Correlation
.262** .333**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.005 .000
N
112 112
Internal Communication
Weighted (by richness)
Pearson Correlation
.258** .378**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.006 .000
N
112 112
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Company
Trust
Managerial Trust
Company Trust 1 .543**
Managerial Trust .543** 1
101
Regression analysis was then conducted to determine the independent effect of each form
of trust on each index of internal communication (see Tables 12 and 13). Hypothesis 3 is
partially supported, because only managerial trust is found to be significantly related to
internal communication and not company trust. When controlling for both forms of trust,
only Managerial Trust is significantly and positively related to each index of internal
communication, as evidenced by the Beta standard errors.
Table 12. Regression coefficients for trust and internal communication
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Model
B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error
(Constant)
10.182 1.493 6.818 .000
Company
Trust
.355 .329 .115 1.079 .283
1
Managerial
Trust
.674 .267 .270 2.526 .013
R2 adjusted
.10
F
7.44***
a Dependent Variable: Internal Communication *** p <.001
Table 13. Regression coefficients for trust and weighted internal communication
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Model
B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error
(Constant)
18.435 3.179 5.799 .000
Company
Trust
.498 .700 .075 .712 .478
1
Managerial
Trust
1.817 .568 .337 3.202 .002
R2 adjusted
.13
F
9.38***
a Dependent Variable: InternalCommWeighted ***p < .001
Hypothesis 4
Hypotheses 4, “Internal communication with employee publics enhances employee
commitment to the organization” examined the relationship between the indices of internal
communication and two types of organizational commitment--affective commitment and
102
continuance commitment--as measured by management scholars Meyer and Allen (1997).
Affective commitment measures the degree of attachment an employee has for his or her
company. The most interesting finding here is that the highest score is found for the
statement “I enjoy discussing my company with people outside it.” This finding is an
indication that if employees feel a part of the company they work for, they could be strong
advocates for their company. Continuance commitment measures the degree to which
employees feel like they have no other job options, which keeps them with their company.
Overall, it appears that the attachment employees feel is stronger than their confidence in
finding alternate employment. This attachment might actually influence the extent to which
they believe they can leave their firm, because those strong feelings might lead them to
believe that this is their “home.” The means for these commitment items are shown in Table
14.
Table 14. Table of means for affective and continuance commitment
(N=112)
Affective Commitment Means Meyer &
Allen 1997
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career
in this company
4.45
I enjoy discussing my company with people outside
it
5.21
I really feel as if this company’s problems are my
own
4.76
I think I could easily become as attached to another
company as I am to this one
3.35 Reversed
I do not feel like “part of the family” at this company 4.86 Reversed
I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this company 4.90 Reversed
This company has a great deal of personal meaning
for me
4.80
I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this
company
4.68 Reversed
Continuance Commitment Meyer &
Allen 1997
It would be very hard for me to leave this company 4.18
103
right now, even if I wanted to.
Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided
I wanted to leave my company now.
4.18
It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave this
company in the near future.
4.18 Reversed
Right now, staying with this company is a matter of
necessity as much as desire.
3.93
I believe that I have too few options to consider
leaving this company.
2.82
If I leave this company now, I would have few
alternatives.
2.95
I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job
without having another one lined up.
3.34
One of the major reasons I continue to work for my
company is that another company may not match the
overall benefits I have here.
3.35
As shown in Table 15, support was not found for Hypothesis 4 based on correlation
analysis using a two-tailed test. However, using a one-tailed test, affective commitment was
marginally and positively related (p <0.10) with both indices of internal communication.
This finding suggests that internal communication can lead to feelings of attachment with
employees, but does not affect their confidence about whether or not they can or should find
employment elsewhere.
Table 15. Correlations of commitment with internal communication
(N=112)
Internal
Communication
Internal
Communication
Weighted
Pearson Correlation
.137 .146
Sig. (2-tailed)
.151 .126
Affective
Commitment
N
112 112
Pearson Correlation
.089 .093
Sig. (2-tailed)
.351 .334
Continuance
Commitment
N
112 112
Previous empirical research has documented a relationship between affective
commitment and an employee’s tenure or seniority with his or her firm (Meyer & Allen,
104
1997). In my study a strong relationship was also found correlating firm seniority with
affective commitment (see Table 16). Thus, organizational seniority was controlled for in all
subsequent analyses predicting affective commitment. Affective commitment has an alpha
of 0.88 and a mean of 4.62 on the 7-point scale. Continuance commitment has an alpha of
0.56 and a mean of 3.627. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is supported when controlling for
seniority. This finding suggests that the longer an employee has been with a firm, the more
attachment he or she feels for it.
Table 16. Correlation between firm seniority and affective commitment
(N=112)
Question
94: How
many years
have you
worked at
this firm?
Affective
Commitment
Pearson
Correlation
1 .367**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Question 94: How
many years have
you worked at this
firm?
N 104 104
Pearson
Correlation
.367** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Affective
Commitment
N 104 112
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 17 highlights the regression results for all variables, including tenure, on affective
commitment. These results confirm that tenure does affect affective commitment.
Therefore, communication executives need to be aware that their efforts to communicate
with employees are important for employees with more seniority, and not just new
employees.
105
Table 17. Regression Table for Influence on Affective Commitment
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Model
B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error
(Constant)
.464 .524 .885 .378
Internal
Communication
-.012 .028 -.031 -.410 .683
Managerial Trust
.204 .081 .217 2.518 .013
Company Trust
.573 .097 .492 5.929 .000
1
Question 94: How
many years have you
worked at this firm?
.064 .015 .312 4.356 .000
a Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis five, “Internal communication with employee publics results in a stronger
firm reputation among internal publics,” was tested by asking for employees to answer the
extent of their agreement with “My company has an outstanding reputation.” The mean of
this question was 5.35 on a 7-point scale. The correlation between internal communication
(both weighted and unweighted) and reputation showed no significant relationship. This
finding could be due to the fact that employees from multiple firms completed the survey and
therefore it was not possible to correlate external reputation data from research firms, such as
J. D. Power, for each employee who participated in the survey research. Future research
should examine one or a limited number of firms that utilize external reputation measures in
order to understand this relationship between internal communication and reputation.
Hypothesis Six
Finally, Hypothesis six examines the impact of trust on employee commitment,
proposing that “Trust will be positively related to commitment.” As hypothesized, affective
commitment was both positively and significantly related to both company trust and
managerial trust, based on both correlation and regression analyses (see Tables 18 and 19).
106
Continuance commitment was not significantly related to either form of trust based on
correlation analysis, and so regression analysis was not conducted. This finding
demonstrates that the relationship employees have with their manager is a stronger indicator
of the attachment they feel to their companies, than whether or not they feel able to continue
working for that firm.
Table 18. Correlation of trust and commitment
(n=112)
Affective
Commitment
Continuance
Commitment
Company
Trust
Pearson Correlation
.617(**) .053
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .582
N
112 112
Managerial
Trust
Pearson Correlation .532(**) -.098
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .304
N
112 112
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 19. Regression coefficients for trust and affective commitment
(N=112)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Model
B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error
(Constant)
.541 .455 1.187 .238
Company
Trust
.544 .100 .465 5.424 .000
1
Managerial
Trust
.266 .081 .280 3.269 .001
a Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment
Communication Preferences
In order to better understand employees’ communication preferences and to
understand if there are differences between positive and negative news delivery, respondents
also were asked about their communication preferences via face-to-face, email and written
communications. The frequencies for each communication method are reported in Table 20.
107
Respondents overwhelmingly preferred to use and receive face-to-face communication for
both good and bad news. Respondents prefer to give both good and bad news in person just
slightly more than they prefer to receive it. Email communication trailed as a distant second
most-preferred method for giving and receiving information. Face-to-face communication,
then, is confirmed as being the most-preferred way to give information to employees as well
as to receive information from a manager.
Table 20. Descriptive statistics of communication preferences
(N=112)
If you are getting bad news from your manager, do you
prefer
• Face-to-face communication 87%
• Written communication 5.0%
• Email communication 6.4%
• Any type of communication (no preference) 1.3%
If you are getting good news from your manager, do
you prefer
• Face-to-face communication 85.6%
• Written communication 0.9%
• Email communication 5.4%
• Any type of communication (no preference) 8.1%
If you are giving bad news to your employees, do you
prefer using
• Face-to-face communication 90%
• Written communication 2.8%
• Email communication 5.5%
• Any type of communication (no preference) 1.8%
If you are giving good news to your employees, do you
prefer using
• Face-to-face communication 90%
• Written communication 0.9%
• Email communication 3.7%
• Any type of communication (no preference) 5.5%
Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Results
Overall, the survey results show that email communication is the method most often
used by employees, closely followed by face-to-face communication. However, face-to-face
108
communication is evaluated by survey respondents to be richer in providing both verbal and
non-verbal feedback. Employee interviews confirm this assessment, as employees
overwhelmingly described a preference for face-to-face communication with their manager
in order to get feedback from them about their job as well as to help build closer relationships
with them. Executive interviews underscored the importance of face-to-face communication,
but they saw their communication toolset to be much wider, including electronic
communication. In addition, these communication executives were not always the ones
providing that face-to-face communication, but instead, were relying on managers to transmit
important company information to employees. Katherine wisely observed that
communication skills are not always a strength of each of her managers.
Most people would agree that effective communication is important in business.
Here’s the catch: not everyone is a great communicator. That is probably the biggest
hurdle for our company. Getting the right people in place to carry the message is
very important. When things are clearly communicated there is less left to the
imagination.
Based on the survey data as well as the interview data, face-to-face communication
still occupies a large share of the communications pie, but other media are encroaching upon
it (see Figure E). The proportions in Figure E come from the descriptions from the
interviewees as well as the survey questions indicating that respondents prefer face-to-face
communication by 80% over other communication vehicles. In addition, the pie shows how
email, phone and intranet communication is much more closely associated with rich
communication, such as face-to-face communication, whereas blogging, memos or satellite
TV are less rich.
109
Figure E. Communications pie
The survey results also show that to the extent that employees sense that they have
mutual control over their jobs with the management of their companies, they also feel like
they have a positive relationship with them. Employees described this mutuality of control
when they talked about how comfortable they felt talking to their manager and how well their
manager listened to them. Conversely, if they feel they have a transaction-oriented
relationship (Exchange Relationship), it is negatively related to their sense of having a more
positive mutual relationship. Employees also verbalized their respect for managers who are
open-minded as opposed to those who are not as willing to listen. Executives did not talk
about this issue much, possibly because they are in essence one step removed from
employees, relying instead on managers to bridge that open-mindedness gap.
The lack of significance for continuance commitment may reflect its more
transaction-based nature, as opposed to the relationship-based nature of affective
commitment. These findings were corroborated by the interviews with both employees and
Face-to-face
communication
communcation
Satellite
TV
memos
Blogging/
podcasts
phone
Intra
nets
110
executives. Employees felt that as they were more able to trust their manager, they were
more committed to their jobs. Executives believed that it was important to build better
relationships, both between employees and their internal communications departments, as
well as between employee and their company, so that employees would remain committed to
their firms. The financial services firm even had metrics in place to reward managers who
were able to retain employees and reduce turnover.
The strength of the relationship between affective commitment and trust was also
reflected in employee comments on communication. Employees described their greater
commitment to those managers who were better communicators and executives described
their desire to build trust among employees as a reason for striving for improved
communication. Employees mentioned feeling closer to their manager when they felt like
they had open and positive communications with them.
In addition, executives explained the role of internal communication as building
employee engagement, which should also enhance affective commitment. Executives
understand the importance of building employee engagement and described it as one of their
two primary roles in their organizations. Keith explained,
I think that is the primary goal of communications is to promote employee
engagement with the company’s strategy and vision. There’s no other reason
for anything else that we do. Why do you have an employee newsletter or
magazine that talks about everything from the company’s business to
philanthropy and employee volunteering. Why do you spend that kind of
money to put out a publication like that? It’s not just to deliver information.
You’re trying to accomplish something to make people feel part of a team and
understand what the company’s doing.
In addition, the survey results show that internal communication leads to a stronger
sense of managerial trust than company trust. This finding might be because employees get
111
more of their information directly from their managers and find it easier to develop a
perspective on the trustworthiness of their manager. Employees’ perspective on internal
communication is “talking with my manager” and less about getting information from
corporate headquarters. Executives, on the other hand, have the job responsibility for
disseminating information from corporate headquarters, so they might not be as attuned to
the benefits of building trust between employees and the company because they are one step
removed from employees.
Affective commitment was found to be significantly related to internal
communication, but not continuance commitment. Therefore, the degree to which employees
feel attached to their company might be as a direct result of the type of internal
communication they receive. In addition, the longer an employee has been with a firm, the
more attached they will feel to their company. Deserei described this phenomenon and said
that when a store is hiring new employees, it is easy for managers to forget to communicate
positive reinforcement to tenured employees. Executives did not describe a distinction
between new and tenured employees.
In the survey, reputation was measured using a self-report item “My company has an
outstanding reputation.” Limited support was found for a relationship between internal
communication and firm reputation. “Managing reputation” was mentioned in the executive
interviews as being one of their primary duties. Two of the firms--energy and financial
services--used outside measures of reputation to measure their progress towards that
reputation goal. While the employees in their interviews did not use the word “reputation”
they did agree that one of the goals in their jobs was to make sure their customers were
happy. Employees and executives saw reputation as a critical outcome of open
112
communication, but it is not clear if this is an internal goal or an external one. It is also not
clear what universal reputation measure is best to use for this study as there is not one
dimension that covers all of the organizations who participated. It is clear, however, that
firm reputation or image is important to all individuals interviewed for this study. They care
about the way their employees, customers, community and even their suppliers perceive them
and their actions.
No relationship could be found for internal communications and reputation, but that
could be due to the inability to get external reputation data. Employees understood how their
actions affected what their customers thought of them and their firm, and executives were
intently focused on managing their firms’ reputations through their communication efforts.
Again, there might be a disconnect here between the front-line employees who are actually
affecting reputation and the executives who are attempting to manage the firm’s reputation
from afar. Finally, the quantitative analysis showed affective commitment is significantly
related to both managerial trust and company trust. The more attached an employee feels to
his or her company, the more he or she trusts both his or her manager and his or her
company. The employees echoed this finding relating stories of how they felt attached to
their company due to the strong relationships they have with their manager. Executives did
not focus on trust, per se, in their job responsibilities nor communication goals.
Employee vs. Executive Perspectives
In this study, employees and executives talked about communication differently.
Employees talk about communication with their manager and each other as though it is an
integral part of their work every day, yet executives talk about communication as something
to be managed, like a process or a machine. Employees think face-to-face communication is
113
the most critical aspect of relating to their manager or company and the executives would
agree, but the latter mentioned that they still have to coach their internal clients on how to do
a better job relating to employees. These executives have found that their clients would
rather send out a memo than walk over and talk to an employee. Executives also see many
communication vehicles available to them to send messages to employees, and don’t always
see that face-to-face is fastest or easiest. The differing pattern of perspectives between
employees and executives may reflect the latter’s fragmented attention or
compartmentalization with multiple employees to manage.
Executives even had specific names or jargon for this process: corporate
communication, employee communication, or internal communication. They find it distinct
from both marketing and public relations. For these executives, corporate communication or
internal communication best describes the work they do to communicate with employee
constituents. The implication is that communication is different than marketing or public
relations to these executives.
Employees did not use specific names or jargon for this process. They refer to this
type of communication as “talking.” They recognize that having the ability and comfort
level to talk to their boss each day is what makes them feel secure and happy in their jobs.
They are very astute in understanding which managers are receptive to this type of open
communication and which managers shy away from it.
As a result, employees and executives have different conceptions in how and why
they communicate and there is room for miscommunication to occur. Managers might feel
that they must present information to employees (as mandated by their supervisors or by the
internal communications department), yet employees seek opportunities for informal and
114
open dialogue with their managers. This alone could contribute to an employee’s sense that
his or her manager is not open to dialogue because they are always in a presenting mode of
communication. This also leaves a void between employees who seek intimate
communication and communication executives who plan it—what person or role is there to
advocate on behalf of what employees want?
Summary
These survey questions were analyzed last, after the interviews were completed and
analyzed. In the discussion chapter that follows, the interview responses and survey results
will be triangulated in order to better understand how both employees and executives feel
about internal communication and how it relates to the relationship management literature.
The discussion chapter will evaluate how the results relate to the literature presented
earlier, as well as how the qualitative and quantitative data relate to each other. The research
questions will be evaluated based on the interview data and the survey data will be
interpreted in light of the literatures discussed earlier. Finally, the discussion will address
issues not posed in the research questions or hypotheses, such as the juxtaposition of the
employee and executive perspectives, the formality of communication approaches, the role of
ethical communication, the view of multiple stakeholder roles, and the managerial
implications of this research. The next chapter will present the discussion of these results
and suggestions for future research.
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of internal communication
on employee’s levels of trust and commitment to their organizations, in addition to its effect
on the employee’s perspective of his or her firm’s reputation. The study used the concept of
relationship management in order to understand the role that internal communication plays in
building positive relationships with employee publics. The findings begin with an analysis of
the qualitative and quantitative data within the context of the extant literature.
Findings from the research questions and hypotheses
Understanding the place for rich communication
Role of face-to-face communication
The qualitative and quantitative analysis indicated that both employees and
executives believe effective communication is essential to both doing their jobs and
appreciating their jobs. These findings support Botan’s (1992) conclusion that
communication should be the focus of building relationships with publics. Grunig and
Huang (2000) also concluded that the two-way nature of communication (such as talking and
listening) were important in building relationships between an organization and its public(s).
Specifically, interview findings from employees found that they relied heavily on face-to-
face communication to both receive and provide information with their manager and with
each other. Executive interviews underscored the importance of face-to-face communication
116
among all communication methods available to them. It appears then that the rich method of
face-to-face communication is effective for building relationships between firms and their
employees, which supports the contentions of Daft, Lengel, and Trevino’s (1987) findings
that face-to-face communication is considered the most-rich type of communication. That is,
face-to-face communication is better able to provide information back to the listener in terms
of both verbal and non-verbal feedback. This study’s findings, however, go beyond previous
research and point to the different interpretations by executives and employees of the
importance of face-to-face communication.
Referring back to the collective mindmap (Figure D), these results diverge where
each party defines the importance of face-to-face communication. Executives see this type of
communication as one method among many for promoting dialogue with their key audiences,
but employees see this as integral for interpreting whether or not they have an open-minded
manager who they are able to talk to. The executive interview responses concurred with the
importance that employees place on face-to-face communication, yet disclosed that their
managers are not always equipped to deal face-to-face with their direct reports. In the
software firm, face-to-face communication was deemed important enough that her firm’s
management development program included training specifically on how managers can be
better communicators. Future research should ask managers about their level of expertise in
face-to-face communication, as well as ask organizations how they help managers improve
this skill.
Role of Feedback
Feedback, one aspect of rich communication as measured by Daft, Lengel, and
Trevino (1987), is not something that this author initially thought was an important part of
117
internal communication however, employees repeatedly mentioned that feedback from their
manager made them feel more connected to their manager and their company. Executives
talked about the need to coach their managers on how to give feedback to employees so that
it was timely and useful. Finally, the survey results show that employees feel that feedback
is indeed considered important and that face-to-face communication provides both timely and
non-verbal feedback to employees. Feedback, then is an important aspect not only of rich
communication, but of internal communication. The relationship management literature
briefly suggests that better communication is important, but does not give specifics on what
types of communication are important or the steps that must be taken to improve
communication. Grunig’s (1993) two-way communication would imply that feedback would
be a component of an organization and its public communicating back and forth with each
other, but he is not explicit about feedback. Hence, this study contributes an essential
component to understand the significance of effective communication, specifically by
managers, to employee trust and job satisfaction.
In addition, employees in this study want to talk to their manager in order to get
feedback but the executives interviewed were the ones planning the communication, not
actually implementing it. In addition, the executives did not factor feedback into their
discussion, a determination of which channel to use for which message. Some channels only
provide one-way communication which might make it less trusted. Grunig (1983) suggests
that publics can perceive a difference between symbolic and behavioral communication and
one-way communication is inherently symbolic in that it says something, but does not have
to follow-up. Two-way or behavioral communication, on the other hand, suggests that the
provider is willing to engage in dialogue and actually make changes as a result of that
118
dialogue. That discrepancy could also explain a disconnect between what employees and
executives agree is important. If the executives are only planning communication and not
implementing it, they do not actually know how effective it was or how it was eventually
implemented unless they conduct research. Thus, future research should consider how time
constraints and training budgets influence the utilization of various communication media.
In addition, future research should consider whether employees should have a voice at the
planning phase of communications to make sure communication is both planned and
implemented in ways that are most effective for them. Future research should also look at
whether or not executives use research to consider the employees’ voices. Finally, future
research should look at which media channels offer the best two-way interactions.
The employee interviews revealed that the participants felt more valued when they
have a manager who is willing to listen and provide feedback to them. Toth (2000) described
communication as an important component in building interpersonal relationships and
listening might be the method to achieve this. As seen in Figure F, a study by Steil, Barker,
and Watsoh (1983, p. 5) found that reading and writing are emphasized in formal learning,
yet employees spend more of their working days talking and listening. This study may help
explain why employees feel that there is a disconnect between what they want from their
managers and what their managers can actually do. It also helps to explain why the
employees interviewed described some of their managers as open-minded and willing to
listen while finding other managers less able to be open-minded and willing to listen. If
companies do not provide sufficient time for or access to face-to-face communication or do
not have interpersonal or group communication training in place to help managers do a better
119
job at talking, listening, and providing constructive feedback, then it may be the “luck of the
draw” as to whether an employee actually works for a boss with these capabilities.
Figure F. Pie chart of reading, writing, talking and listening
(From Steil, Barker, & Watsoh, 1983, p. 5)
Role of other communication channels
The results of this study show that communication other than face-to-face are
employed. The survey responses showed that email communication is also used by
managers, just slightly more than face-to-face communication. Greater use of email
communication might occur because it is “more rich” in terms of allowing graphics, audio, or
video to be included in the email communication. It is also easier and quicker for managers
who are under time pressures or who might have many subordinates reporting to them.
However, survey respondents demonstrated a preference for using face-to-face
communication for many reasons, including giving good and bad news, or getting good or
bad news. One reason may be that employees don’t necessarily have access to email in the
course of their workday. This finding is similar to Toth’s (2000) assertion that relationships
are built using interpersonal communication. The relationship management literature,
WRITING
(least used,
most
taught)
9%
LISTENING
(most used,
least
taught)
45%
READING
(next least
used,
next most
taught)
16%
TALKING
(next most
used,
next least
taught)
30%
120
however, did not touch on specific communication methods but insisted on the general
importance of communication (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Toth, 2000). Future research
should consider what specific methods build positive relationships.
Additionally, results of the executive interviews revealed that these managers found it
useful to ask employees how they wished to receive communication, rather than relying on
their own views. This finding goes beyond Trevino, Webster, and Stein’s (2000) study that
found that managers chose which medium to use to disseminate information based on their
own perceptions of how rich the media were or how rich the media needed to be for that
situation. It appears that while face-to-face communication is perceived as richer, it is used
just slightly less than electronic, or email communication. This finding fits with what the
executives said; specifically, they felt that they owned an array of communication vehicles to
communicate with employees. Perhaps one reason why face-to-face communication is used
to a lesser extent is because of the time and effort it takes to do it properly. In order for
communication to be decoded properly, it must be encoded carefully. Hall (1980) described
this encoding-decoding process in mass communication in the context of television when a
message is sent across the airwaves a certain way, hoping that the audience will receive it in
as intended. This encoding-decoding process requires thought on the part of the person
initiating the communication about how it will be interpreted by the receivers. Email
communication does not necessarily require as much thought because it is easy to fire off an
email whereas we might stop to consider our words before entering someone’s office. In
addition, email does not require the person talking to also listen, and does not involve any
interpretation of non-verbal messages. This study found, however, that electronic
communication is used more frequently by employees and their managers than face-to-face
121
communication, which may be a function of the increasing potential richness of such
communication since the work of Daft et al. (1987) and Toth (2000). It may also be due to
the lack of training individuals receive in being effective face-to-face communicators,
whether in a formal academic setting or through on-the-job training.
This study finds that despite technological advances in the workplace, and the
potential richness of electronic communication, employees still prefer having that face-to-
face communications with their manager. In addition, instead of managers deciding for
themselves which medium to use, three of the executives spoke of surveying their employees
to determine how to best communicate with them. Moreover, some of the firms, seeing the
opportunity for using digital technology such as email to communicate better with
employees, had the foresight to understand that it is best to ask employees which format they
want to receive specific types of information. Negroponte (1995) suggested that the
advantage of using multiple media is that each medium can fill information gaps for the
others. This study’s survey asked only about how firms disseminate new product
information. Subsequent research should investigate other types of common information
employees receive on a regular basis, including information about employee benefits or
corporate strategy. Future research should also examine the impact of digital technology on
rich communication and its place in it. Future research should also examine the proportion of
face-to-face communication versus other media and how employees feel these media should
be allocated in a communications pie (see Figure E). In addition, it would be useful to ask
employees who do not use computers as a regular part of their day how they perceive the
uses of both face-to-face and email communication.
Employees as Publics
122
What is significant from this study is how important the executives believe employees
are as publics. They indicated that their jobs have shifted from an external public focus to an
internal focus, involving employee engagement. This topic has garnered some attention in
books (e.g., Axelrod, 2000) and human resources trade publication (e.g., Lockwood, 2007),
and is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. As mentioned in the study rationale,
however, employees have been an understudied public or population in public relations
research. Although a few public relations scholars have identified employees as an important
public to help fulfill the mission of the organization (Grunig, 1993; Grunig & Huang, 2000),
this omission by other scholars may be because the traditional public relations job has
focused on building relationships with external constituents, particularly media. Hence,
further research may build on these findings and examine practitioner understanding of the
significance of the employee role. Public relations scholars have focused on the concepts of
mutuality and trust to explain the relationships organizations have with their publics.
Relationship Management
The relationship management definition from Ledingham and Bruning (2000) defines
this concept as the focused attention of public relations professionals to create mutually
beneficial relationships with their publics. This definition, however, does not include the
process of how those relationships are built; for employees, the process is primarily through
interpersonal communication such as face-to-face communication. Botan (1992) and Toth
(2000) both indicated that communication should be a focal point of building relationships.
Ledingham and Bruning agree that communication is important, but do not include it in the
definition of relationship management. Both employee interviews and surveys supported this
notion of the importance of face-to-face communication in building close relationships with
123
their managers. A new definition of relationships management should include the aspect of
interpersonal communication. This might make relationship management a more ethical
practice (Carroll, 2006).
Relationship management is the focused attention of public relations
professionals to create mutually beneficial relationships through interpersonal
communication with their publics.
In addition, future research needs to consider how “mutually beneficial” these
relationship management efforts truly are, as the benefits to managers are clearer than those
for employees. Mutual benefit implies something positive for each party—a balance or
equity in the relationship. Interviews reveal that face-to-face communication helps
employees to feel secure in their jobs due to a closer relationship with their manager. This is
helpful for management, as employees’ security might reduce turnover, but it is less clear
what benefit employees accrue other than ones that ultimately benefit the organization. This
results in an imbalance between management and employees. If mutual benefit is to remain
in the definition of relationship management, managers will have to make more of an effort
to make sure employees find it as beneficial as they do. If workplace democracy is to be
truly realized (Deetz, 1992) then employees need to feel that they have more control in
decision-making as well as have opportunities to talk with their manager.
Control Mutuality
Consequently, this study did not find employees and executives talking about
mutuality in their relationship. The survey results reveal that mutuality is important to them
when asked, but in the forum of an open-ended interview, the word mutual or mutuality did
not occur. There was no evidence that relationship management was thought to be a tool of
mutual decision-making between employees and their managers. Instead, executives talked
124
about employee engagement and employees talked about the interpersonal aspect of their job,
including enjoying the people they work with (both co-workers and customers). This finding
refutes what Thomlinson (2000) found about the expectation the parties have for each other,
aspects of control mutuality, communal relationships, and exchange relationships. Toth
(2000) emphasizes the ways parties communicate with each other to build relationships, and
this study demonstrates that the more open-minded a manager is, the more likely employees
will perceive a positive interaction and will see that face-to-face communication is a means
to building a better relationship.
It would appear that firms must find ways to simultaneously increase the level of
communal relationships and reduce the level of exchange relationships if they want their
employees to feel as though they are equal contributors toward their firms’ missions. As
exchange relationships are positively related to communal relationships, however, there may
be some threshold for exchange relationship below which communal relationships also begin
to suffer. Future research should survey employee attitudes about their ability to participate
in decision-making in addition to their direct managers’ so that discrete differences can be
identified between how employees perceive their place in the organization as well as how
their manager communicates that to them.
Trust
Another purpose of this study was to determine which communication method(s)
were most effective for building trust between the company and its employees. Specifically,
research question one asked, “How do organizations communicate with employees to create
trusting relationships with employees?” The findings support what public relations scholars
Grunig, Grunig, and Ehling (1992) suggested--that trust was an attribute of relationships with
125
publics to be measured and cultivated. Grunig and Huang (2000) found that successful
relationships between an organization and its publics emerged from mutual trust, and
Bruning and Ledingham (2000) called for more research into a complete definition of trust.
The items used to measure trust in this study come from both public relations (Grunig
& Hon, 1999) and business management (Mishra, 1996) scholars. The public relations trust
questions (company trust) asked about feelings of trust between the employee and the
company, whereas the management trust questions (managerial trust) asked about feelings of
trust between the employee and his or her manager. The mean scores are higher for
managerial trust than company trust, which may reflect the salience of managers over a
company in employees’ trust assessments. This finding might also indicate that employees
are able to put their trust more easily in a person, such as their manager, rather than their
company because it is easier for them to evaluate their managers’ actions when it affects
them most directly. Their company’s actions, however, may be evaluated at a collective
level, as well as at a personal level. Company Trust and Managerial Trust appear to enhance
one another.
Managerial Trust is significantly and positively related to each index of internal
communication but it is most positively related to face-to-face communication. It appears
then, that face-to-face communication is the most effective communication method for
building trust between employees and their employer. The executive interviewees did not
bring up the issue of trust, except for Sharon in relating communication to rebuilding trust
after a merger. Employees, however, describe how communication helped to improve their
relationships with their managers, co-workers, and customers. Executives did not focus on
trust or relationship building in the same way.
126
In future research, it will be important to construct a more-refined measure of internal
communication because there are no published questions discovered that were explicitly
relevant for this construct. In refining this measure, I would ask questions about how often
managers communicate with employees using each medium, as well as the type of
information that is shared with employees. It would also be important to find out whether or
not employees feel like they have input as to the type of information they receive and how
they would prefer to receive it. Finally, I would ask the employees if they feel that this
information is adequate in order to help them in their customer relationships, and if they have
the opportunity to provide feedback to their manager. If employees truly understand how
their jobs and actions affect their customer’s perceptions of them and their company, then it
will be important to understand exactly how they use this information in their jobs and how
providing feedback to their manager affects their levels of trust and commitment to the
organization.
Trust and Commitment
This study also makes a significant contribution to the impact of commitment in
employee communication, which was explored through Research Question two, “How do
organizations communicate with employees to create a sense of commitment with
employees?” While public relations scholars have focused on trust between an organization
and its publics, the topic of commitment has not been as widely studied. Grunig and Huang
(2000) found that the level of commitment between an organization and its publics could be
used as a barometer for the health of the organization. Business management scholars Meyer
and Allen (1997) have studied many forms of commitment and found that affective and
continuance commitment built trust between parties. Affective commitment is feelings of
127
attachment to an organization and continuance commitment is a desire to remain with the
organization.
Controlling for seniority, internal communication was found to be positively related
to trust and affective commitment. This is an important finding because it is easy to lose
sight of established employees in favor of spending time training and engaging new
employees. In one of the interviews, an employee identified this problem of neglecting
established or old employees, thinking that they can function without feedback and
encouragement. This employee recognized the link between continual feedback and
commitment to creating a positive customer experience. If this link is a barometer of health
of an organization, as Grunig and Huang (2000) suggest, then healthy organizations will not
neglect more senior employees at the expense of newer ones. Future research should
examine the differences in the trust and commitment levels between newer and more senior
employees in one organization. It would also be helpful to understand how managers split
their time communicating with both new employees versus those with more seniority. In
addition, future research should consider what helps an employee feel more attached (or
affectively committed) to his or her organization? This study would suggest that seniority
contributes to attachment, but that internal communication must be in place to develop those
attachments.
Reputation
Additionally, this study contributes to the understanding of reputation and employee
communication, as addressed through Research Question three, “How do organizations
communicate with employees to create a positive reputation with employees and with
customers?” Employees interviewed understood that their work has direct customer impact
128
and ultimately affected their perception of the firm. Executives talked about protecting and
managing the reputation of their company, but believed that they did not necessarily have
direct influence on reputation. They believed that their company’s behaviors would
ultimately be judged and would then affect their firm’s reputation. Referring back to the
collective mindmap (Figure D), employees feel that they have a direct influence on their
firm’s reputation, but executives do not. If executives do not feel like they have direct
impact on reputation, but employees do feel they have direct impact, it would seem that the
employees are actually the ones with the power to either build or destroy reputation, based on
their actions.
Grunig and Huang (2000) suggested that an organization’s reputation is an outcome
of its behaviors that a public remembers. It makes sense then, that more and more
consumers take note of how organizations care for employees and their evaluation of this
even affects their purchase decisions (National Consumer’s League, 2006). The Consumer’s
League study found that customers care about how firms take care of their employees and
will make purchase decisions based on whether or not those actions are aligned with their
own values.
While a firm might consider spending more money on customer relationships (such as
advertising) as a way to improve market share or reputation, ultimately, studies have found
that employees are more credible to consumers than advertising (Edelman, 2006). It might
be time to reconsider the model on page 34 where two-way communication leads to trust,
commitment and a positive reputation. Organizations might have to give up some control
and put more emphasis on promoting better internal relationships between employees and
managers by training managers in interpersonal communication. This training would include
129
listening skills, feedback skills, and consensus building. If employees are truly engaged in
the mission of the organization, they will be a more cost-effective and more compelling
ambassador for the organization than advertising.
Summary
One of the reasons for studying two of these firms in particular is that they are on
Fortune’s 2006 Most Admired List of companies to work for, so they already have a
reputation for valuing employees as assets. Two of the executives described their employee
engagement mandate as coming from their CEOs. Two other executives mentioned how
public relations research had guided their communications thinking and planning. Future
research should consider how firms make the decision to value employees as a distinct
public. In addition, future research should examine the rationale of valuing employees as
publics to determine whether or not this is driven internally by a CEO or by a communication
professional’s knowledge and experience.
Other Findings
In addition to discussing how the findings relate to the extant literature, additional
concepts emerged from this study that deserve attention. Specifically, these concepts are
internal communication, employee engagement, formal versus informal communication,
ethical communication, and stakeholder roles. Contributions from this study are described in
this section.
Internal Communication
Internal communication is the word that best describes this process of utilizing face-
to-face and other communication vehicles to build mutually beneficial relationships with
employee publics. This word is an effective descriptor of this process because it is not
130
marketing-oriented and it is not public relations-oriented. Despite the emphasis on integrated
marketing communication, these two disciplines struggle over who controls information both
externally and internally. By utilizing the term internal communication, it does not imply
any departmental ownership. It also differentiates itself from external communication, which
is focused on customers. The benefit to organizations in promoting internal communication
is to turn employees into brand ambassadors (Forrester, 2007). Firms benefit from
employees who are enthusiastic advocates for their employer, as the Edelman (2006) study
found that employees are more credible to customers than paid advertising. The benefits to
employees include a sense of ownership in the firm’s activities and goals, which can also
enhance self-esteem and confidence in employees.
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is not a term used in the relationship management literature
(Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Toth, 2000). It emerged from the interviews with executives,
however, as a critical component of their job responsibilities. The executives in this study
described their responsibilities as building dialogue with key audiences, which included both
an internal component of employee engagement and an external component of managing
their firm’s reputation. These executives were aware that their employees are an important
public, and considered them equal in value to investors or customers. Three of the firms had
departments, in fact, specifically designed to manage relationships with employees.
Referring back to the collective mindmap (Figure D), executives focus on engagement as a
goal of their communication efforts, while employees focus on relationships with people as
an outcome of the communication efforts of the company.
131
Because employee engagement was not part of the initial literature review, a search
was conducted to determine how well entrenched this term is in the public relations
literature. Several practitioner articles were found which discussed measuring employee
engagement as a result of internal communication efforts (e.g., Sudhakar &Sujit, 2006). The
only academic journal found that included articles on employee engagement is Strategic
Communication Management. One study by Shaw (2006) asked both communication and
HR professionals at companies around the world what drives employee engagement in their
organizations. “According to over 1000 respondents, senior leadership is the single most
important factor in building a committed and loyal workforce” (p. 14).
Employee engagement, then, is a concept that crosses the boundaries of human
resources and communications professionals. If this concept is being driven by the goals of
CEOs of companies, but is not being taught or researched by public relations scholars, there
is an opportunity to provide guidance for our public relations and corporate communications
professionals with new research in this area. This concept includes employees’ interest and
ability in expressing the goals and vision of the company, their commitment to their firm, and
how their engagement affects the reputation of the firm. Employee engagement has potential
benefits to both the employer and employees.
Formal vs. Informal Communication Approaches
One other noticeable difference among the interviewees was the way the corporate
communications executives (from energy, banking, software, and the utility) talked about
corporate communications versus how the executives from the more entrepreneurial firms
(retail and construction materials) talked about employee communication. The corporate
communications executives talked about a more formalized and strategic approach towards
132
employee communications, having a specific department, roles, and communication vehicles
in place to accomplish specific communication goals. This is very similar to the Carroll and
Buchholtz (2000) five-step method of stakeholder analysis, as outlined earlier. In addition,
these communication executives even relied on public relations research to guide their
communications planning.
On the other hand, the more entrepreneurial firms did not have a separate
corporate communications department, but handled the employee communications
function along with their human resource, management, or operations roles. Those
executives recognized that communication is important, but managed communication
through employees’ immediate supervisors rather than from a corporate perspective.
This probably reflects the less-developed organizational structures and fewer distinct
roles in these types of organizations. Communication differences might be attributed
to the presence of a dedicated communications professional in the organization.
Ethical Communication
This study found that employees interviewed trust managers more who are more
open-minded and willing to listen. This finding supports the argument by business ethics
scholar Archie Carroll (2006) that ethical organizations take care of their employees,
working to build trust with them through open communication efforts, as well as
demonstrating respect for employees and acting with integrity in all employee relations. He
claims that if management does not demonstrate transparency, supportiveness and a
willingness to listen, employees will end up with less trust in management. Trust could also
be a mutual benefit to both employer and employee.
133
Both Carroll (2006) and Deetz (1992) identify open communication as ethical
communication, or contributing to an ethical organization. They contend that if companies
are willing to engage in dialogue with employees, then that is one way to examine a firm’s
values. Indeed, one executive mentioned in his interview that this strategy of internal
communications was central to his firm’s efforts to be an ethical organization.
Future research should measure the ethicality of a firm, its level of open
communication in its organization, and the degree to which there is an opportunity for give
and take between the company and employees. In addition, future research should ask
employees if they prefer to work for employers that are perceived as more ethical. Paine
(2003) found that customers want to buy from ethical organizations. Future research should
consider whether or not customers and employees agree that open communication is more
ethical, if customers are more willing to demonstrate a purchase preference for such firms,
and whether customers or employees even care about ethical communication.
In addition, if firms are engaging in ethical communication and hence, ethical
behavior, do these new internal communications professionals adhere to ethics codes, such as
those for advertising or public relations professionals? A code might help clarify what the
overriding goal of internal communication should be. Future research should consider
whether a separate code of ethics for internal communications professionals would enhance
both their visibility and their strategic performance.
Multiple stakeholder roles
Gronstedt (2000) believes that one impetus for internal communication is the fact that
employees as stakeholders now have more than one role with a company. They might be an
employee by day, but act as board members by night, representing their company to
134
nonprofit and governmental organizations. In addition, employees share their positive and
negative feelings about their employer with friends and neighbors. This blurring of roles
contributes to a sense that employees must be taken more seriously as a public. Future
research should ask employees what other roles they play in their communities, to understand
this multiple stakeholder role and how it affects both internal and external communication.
This is another area that might provide mutual benefit to both employees and organizations.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this study, several recommendations can be made regarding
the significance of this study on subsequent research, professional training, and development.
The following sections discuss what next steps should be considered.
What we should research?
In order to advance the study of employees as publics and how internal
communication can build trust and commitment, public relations scholars should study firms
in-depth who do a good job of building strong relationships with employees, such as those on
the Fortune’s Most Admired list, whose employees are known for being advocates for their
companies. Based on the findings of this study, it would be valuable to hypothesize that
employees who feel attached enough to their organization to want to advocate for it must feel
trusted by and committed to their organizations. Researchers should investigate if this word
“employee engagement” describes what executives are looking for as well as what
employees are feeling. Employee engagement is not used in mainstream public relations
journals, so there is room to begin a new conversation. Is this a new role for public relations
professionals? Does the impetus for this goal come from the professionals themselves, or
from CEOs?
135
Researchers also need to understand if face-to-face communication is the only
method for building these close relationships or if any electronic media or other tools can
produce similar results. We might find that initial relationships are built face-to-face, but can
be maintained through other communication vehicles. Future research should examine how
trust is built over time (Mishra & Mishra, working paper) and whether face-to-face
communication is the only way to establish and maintain trust. Future research should also
consider whether or not face-to-face communication translates well into other
communication vehicles. Can email communication become more like face-to-face
communication if the other person’s face is attached to email or instant messaging
communication? Does this add a “sense of presence” (Rappa, personal conversation, 2007),
where a photo creates a feeling of intimacy? It would also be valuable to explore the
differences between synchronous and asynchronous communication. Does timeliness
matter?
In addition, future research should consider which communication methods
employees prefer and have access to. Face-to-face communication exemplifies the “high-
tech, high-touch” approach advocated by Gronstedt (2000) to build trust internally with
employees. Employees seem to crave this type of information and feedback from their
bosses and even from each other. Studies can be conducted to compare internal
communication efforts via face-to-face communication with other communication channels.
The firms that already employ multiple methods of communicating with employees would be
a good place to start. Future research should consider how these communication methods
contribute to relationship management efforts to manage relationships thoughtfully. This
aspect becomes important in building the proper definition for relationship management.
136
In addition, researchers should investigate how firms are able to train managers to be
good communicators, and if they are not able to, why not. One way to examine this would
be to identify the Meyers-Briggs type indicators of the managers to determine if this open-
minded manager is related to personality. If Myers-Briggs personality type is correlated with
an open or closed-minded manager, then this will help communication executives know how
to train managers to use their type to their advantage as well as to relate better to their
subordinates of a different type. There might be other measures other than personality that
would help predict open versus closed-minded managers.
Future research should also examine the role of middle managers to determine what
affect they have on employees trust and commitment to the organization. The model on page
34 is not explicit about the role middle managers play in disseminating communication to
employees. This study found that managerial trust was more powerful than company trust,
and middle managers play an important role in that process. Examining the roles of
employees, middle managers, and communication executives will help uncover the “nexus of
tension” (Rappa and May, personal conversation, 2007) that exists at the middle management
level as they implement with employees what executives plan.
There is also an opportunity to examine the differences between employees’
relationships with business-to-business clients versus business-to-consumer publics. More
firms are encouraging their employees to blog as a way to build relationships with customers
(Mishra & Li, 2007). Future research should examine whether improving internal
communication matter in both contexts by examining the amount of interaction employees
have with each set of customers and if these relationships affect purchase intention or
customer satisfaction.
137
Finally, researchers need to study the process of internal communication. Does
talking and listening lead to strategizing, planning, and implementation? What steps must
occur first to engage employees so that they feel like they are contributing to the mission of
the organization?
What should we teach?
As public relations teachers, we need to instruct our students more about face-to-face
communication and how it builds trust with others. As mentioned previously, the study by
Steil, Barker, and Watsoh, (1983) shows that schools do not teach listening or effective
communication as much as they are used in a day-to-day work environment. We also need to
teach students how to give and receive feedback, as this seems to be a critical skill that
employees seek in a good manager. We can also do a better job of teaching students how to
communicate utilizing new media. As employees use email communication more, we need
to teach when it is appropriate to use email and for what type of messages. We also need to
train students to consider what alternate media is useful, if computers are not accessible
during the workday. These types of interpersonal communication and group communication
courses are typically taught in organization communication departments, which is separate
from business or journalism schools. It might be beneficial to provide an interdisciplinary
course in organizational communication that brings together the perspectives of all
departments.
One executive mentioned that he was having difficulty finding professionals trained
in the field of corporate communications, so teachers could fill this gap by helping students
to see the relationship between internal and external communications. In addition, one
executive mentioned that it would help if students understood the business aspects of their
138
jobs more, to be more helpful as counselors to their internal clients. This involves teaching
business skills as well as coaching skills in order to prepare them for this new job that is
developing.
Business schools also need to focus on interpersonal communication skills in addition
to the current emphasis on presentation and negotiation skills typically offered in MBA
programs. While public relations professionals might be the ones to plan internal
communication efforts, managers who typically come from business backgrounds will be the
ones implementing those internal communication efforts. Listening and feedback skills can
be taught in both public relations and business curricula.
What should professionals do differently?
In order to be better prepared to navigate the world of internal communications,
public relations professionals need to understand the similarities and differences between
internal and external publics. So much of their job focus is traditionally on external publics,
almost to the detriment of internal publics. If professionals are able to utilize scholarly
research on benefits of implementing internal communication, they will be able to see how it
can benefit their organizations, instead of waiting for an enlightened CEO to make them
aware.
Internal communications executives from this study see their role as more strategic in
nature, helping to coach their internal leaders on effective methods for communicating with
employees with the goal of greater employee engagement. The good news is that companies
are recognizing that internal communication with important employee publics helps to build
employee engagement and is a worthy goal for an organization, in addition to customer
139
engagement. Professionals should also create their own code of ethics in order to help them
achieve employee engagement in an ethical way.
Employees are more committed to managers who spend time with them in face-to-
face communication. The challenge will be for professionals to connect the trust employees
have in their managers to trust in the company, in order to build lasting relationships that
enhance firm reputation and employee well-being. This might be accomplished through a
closer relationship communication executives have with middle managers so that they also
feel connected to the company and can make that connection for lower-level employees.
This could be accomplished through regular training and feedback with middle managers
about the goals and mission of the organization, as well as to solicit their feedback on how
the organization is doing to make progress towards those goals.
Researchers, teachers, and professionals can work together to improve the knowledge
about internal communication by collaborating in research, teaching, mentoring, and strategy
development. This cross-fertilization of knowledge will improve both the processes and
implementation of internal communication.
140
APPENDICES
Appendix A. IRB Application with Appropriate Forms and Documents
141
OFFICE OF HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS
Institutional Review Board
APPLICATION FOR IRB APPROVAL OF
HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH
Version 30-May-2006
Part A.1. Contact Information, Agreements, and Signatures
Title of Study: The use of communication in Relationship management of employees Date: 6-
14-06
Name and degrees of Principal Investigator: Karen Mishra
Department: JOMC Mailing address/CB #: 3365
UNC-CH PID: 710921930 Pager:
Phone #: 843-5866 Fax #: 962-0620 Email Address: [email protected]
For trainee-led projects: __ undergraduate _X graduate __ postdoc __ resident __ other
Name of faculty advisor: Dr. Lois Boynton
Department: JOMC Mailing address/CB #: 3365
Phone #: 843-8342 Fax #: 962-0620 Email Address: [email protected]
Name, phone number, email address of project manager or coordinator, if any:
List all other project personnel including co-investigators, and anyone else who has contact with
subjects or identifiable data from subjects:
Name of funding source or sponsor:
_X_ not funded __ Federal __ State __ industry __ foundation __ UNC-CH
__ other (specify): Sponsor or award number:
Include following items with your submission, where applicable.
• Check the relevant items below and include one copy of all checked items 1-11 in the order listed.
• Also include two additional collated sets of copies (sorted in the order listed) for items 1-7.
? Applications may be returned if these instructions are not followed.
Check Item Total No. of Copies
x
1. This application. One copy must have original PI signatures.
3
x
2. Consent and assent forms, fact or information sheets; include phone and verbal consent
scripts.
3
?
3. HIPAA authorization addendum to consent form.
3
x
4. All recruitment materials including scripts, flyers and advertising, letters, emails.
3
x
5. Questionnaires, focus group guides, scripts used to guide phone or in-person interviews,
etc.
3
?
6. Protocol, grant application or proposal supporting this submission; (e.g., extramural grant
application to NIH or foundation, industry protocol, student proposal).
3
?
7. Documentation of reviews from any other committees (e.g., GCRC, Oncology Protocol
Review Committee, or local review committees in Academic Affairs).
3
For IRB Use
Behav Biomed Nurs PH
IRB Study #
Rec’d
Full Expedited Exempt
142
?
8. Addendum for Multi-Site Studies where UNC-CH is the Lead Coordinating Center.
1
?
9. Data use agreements (may be required for use of existing data from third parties).
1
x
10. Documentation of required training in human research ethics for all study personnel.
1
?
11. Investigator Brochure if a drug study.
1
Principal Investigator: I will personally conduct or supervise this research study. I will
ensure that this study is performed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and
University policies regarding human subjects research. I will obtain IRB approval before
making any changes or additions to the project. I will notify the IRB of any other changes in
the information provided in this application. I will provide progress reports to the IRB at
least annually, or as requested. I will report promptly to the IRB all unanticipated problems
or serious adverse events involving risk to human subjects. I will follow the IRB approved
consent process for all subjects. I will ensure that all collaborators, students and employees
assisting in this research study are informed about these obligations. All information given
in this form is accurate and complete.
Signature of Principal Investigator Date
Faculty Advisor if PI is a Student or Trainee Investigator: I accept ultimate
responsibility for ensuring that this study complies with all the obligations listed above for
the PI.
Signature of Faculty Advisor Date
Department or Division Chair, Center Director (or counterpart) of PI: (or Vice-Chair or
Chair’s designee if Chair is investigator or otherwise unable to review): I certify that this
research is appropriate for this Principal Investigator, that the investigators are qualified to
conduct the research, and that there are adequate resources (including financial, support and
facilities) available. If my unit has a local review committee for pre-IRB review, this
requirement has been satisfied. I support this application, and hereby submit it for further
review.
Signature of Department Chair or designee Date
Print Name of Department Chair or designee Department
143
Part A.2. Summary Checklist
Are the following involved? Yes No
A.2.1. Existing data, research records, patient records, and/or human biological specimens? __ _X_
A.2.2. Surveys, questionnaires, interviews, or focus groups with subjects? _X_ __
A.2.3. Videotaping, audiotaping, filming of subjects (newly collected or existing)? __ __X
A.2.4. Do you plan to enroll subjects from these vulnerable or select populations:
a. UNC-CH students or UNC-CH employees? ...............................................................
b. Non-English-speaking? ...............................................................................................
c. Decisionally impaired? ................................................................................................
d. Patients? ......................................................................................................................
e. Prisoners, others involuntarily detained or incarcerated, or parolees? ........................
f. Pregnant women? ........................................................................................................
g. Minors (less than 18 years)? If yes, give age range: to years ............................
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_X_
_X_
_X_
X__
X_
_X_
_X_
A.2.5. a. Is this a multi-site study (sites outside UNC-CH engaged in the research)?
b. Is UNC-CH the sponsor or lead coordinating center?
If yes, include the Addendum for Multi-site Studies where UNC-CH is the Lead
Coordinating Center.
If yes, will any of these sites be outside the United States?
If yes, provide contact information for the foreign IRB.
__
__
__
X__
X__
_X
A.2.6. Will there be a data and safety monitoring committee (DSMB or DSMC)? __ _X_
A.2.7. a. Are you collecting sensitive information such as sexual behavior, HIV status,
recreational drug use, illegal behaviors, child/physical abuse, immigration status, etc?
b. Do you plan to obtain a federal Certificate of Confidentiality for this study?
__
__
_X_
_X_
A.2.8. a. Investigational drugs? (provide IND # )
b. Approved drugs for “non-FDA-approved” conditions?
All studies testing substances in humans must provide a letter of acknowledgement from
the UNC Health Care Investigational Drug Service (IDS).
__
__
X__
X__
A.2.9. Placebo(s)? __ __X
A.2.10. Investigational devices, instruments, machines, software? (provide IDE # ) __ _X_
A.2.11. Fetal tissue? __ _x_
A.2.12. Genetic studies on subjects’ specimens? __ X__
A.2.13. Storage of subjects’ specimens for future research?
If yes, see instructions for Consent for Stored Samples.
__ X__
A.2.14. Diagnostic or therapeutic ionizing radiation, or radioactive isotopes, which subjects
would not receive otherwise?
If yes, approval by the UNC-CH Radiation Safety Committee is required.
__
X__
A.2.15. Recombinant DNA or gene transfer to human subjects?
If yes, approval by the UNC-CH Institutional Biosafety Committee is required.
__ _X_
A.2.16. Does this study involve UNC-CH cancer patients?
If yes, submit this application directly to the Oncology Protocol Review Committee.
__ _X_
A.2.17. Will subjects be studied in the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC)?
If yes, obtain the GCRC Addendum from the GCRC and submit complete application
(IRB application and Addendum) to the GCRC.
__ __X
144
Part A.3. Conflict of Interest Questions and Certification
The following questions apply to all investigators and study staff engaged in the design, conduct, or
reporting results of this project and/or their immediate family members. For these purposes,
"family" includes the individual’s spouse and dependent children. “Spouse” includes a person with
whom one lives together in the same residence and with whom one shares responsibility for each
other’s welfare and shares financial obligations.
A.3.1. Currently or during the term of this research study, does any member of the
research team or his/her family member have or expect to have:
(a) A personal financial interest in or personal financial relationship (including
gifts of cash or in-kind) with the sponsor of this study?
(b) A personal financial interest in or personal financial relationship (including
gifts of cash or in-kind) with an entity that owns or has the right to
commercialize a product, process or technology studied in this project?
(c) A board membership of any kind or an executive position (paid or unpaid)
with the sponsor of this study or with an entity that owns or has the right to
commercialize a product, process or technology studied in this project?
__ yes
__ yes
__ yes
_X_
no
_X no
X_ no
A.3.2. Has the University or has a University-related foundation received a cash or
in-kind gift from the Sponsor of this study for the use or benefit of any member of
the research team?
__ yes
X_ no
A.3.3. Has the University or has a University-related foundation received a cash or
in-kind gift for the use or benefit of any member of the research team from an entity
that owns or has the right to commercialize a product, process or technology studied
in this project?
__ yes
X_ no
If the answer to ANY of the questions above is yes, the affected research team member(s) must
complete and submit to the Office of the University Counsel the form accessible at http://coi.unc.edu.
List name(s) of all research team members for whom any answer to the questions above is yes:
Certification by Principal Investigator: By submitting this IRB application, I (the PI) certify that
the information provided above is true and accurate regarding my own circumstances, that I have
inquired of every UNC-Chapel Hill employee or trainee who will be engaged in the design, conduct or
reporting of results of this project as to the questions set out above, and that I have instructed any such
person who has answered “yes” to any of these questions to complete and submit for approval a Conflict
of Interest Evaluation Form. I understand that as Principal Investigator I am obligated to ensure that
any potential conflicts of interest that exist in relation to my study are reported as required by University
policy.
Signature of Principal Investigator Date
Faculty Advisor if PI is a Student or Trainee Investigator: I accept ultimate responsibility for
ensuring that the PI complies with the University’s conflict of interest policies and procedures.
Signature of Faculty Advisor Date
145
Part A.4. Questions Common to All Studies
For all questions, if the study involves only secondary data analysis, focus on your proposed design,
methods and procedures, and not those of the original study that produced the data you plan to use.
A.4.1. Brief Summary. Provide a brief non-technical description of the study, which will be used in
IRB documentation as a description of the study. Typical summaries are 50-100 words.
Purpose: The purpose of this study will be to examine the communication methods organizations use
with employees in order to build trusting and loyal relationships.
Participants:
Interviews with: 1) Founder of Wieden & Kennedy; 2) UNC alum who is VP of Corporate
Communications with Wachovia, 3) Regional Manager of Starbucks, and 4) VP of Corporate
Communications at SAS.
Focus Groups: employees of Wieden & Kennedy, Wachovia, SAS and Starbucks
Surveys of employees: Wieden & Kennedy, Wachovia, SAS and Starbucks
Procedures (methods): Interviews of Corporate executives, focus groups of middle-level employees,
surveys of all employees
A.4.2. Purpose and Rationale. Provide a summary of the background information, state the
research question(s), and tell why the study is needed. If a complete rationale and literature review
are in an accompanying grant application or other type of proposal, only provide a brief summary
here. If there is no proposal, provide a more extensive rationale and literature review, including
references.
This dissertation will examine the impact of internal communication in an organization
and its effect on employee trust, commitment and firm reputation. The relationship
management literature (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) traditionally focuses on external
publics to the exclusion of internal publics, such as employees. As a result, employees can
often feel left out of the entire production process, thereby hurting the ultimate relationship
with the customer (Lowenstein, 2006).
“Only 24 percent of employees consider themselves truly loyal, committed to their
organization and its goals” (Lowenstein, 2006). Internal communication between an
organization’s leadership and its employees can be an important method for building critical
relationships that harnesses the enthusiasm, loyalty (Reichheld, 2001) and trust (Mishra &
146
Mishra, 2005) of an organization’s employees. Employees have important knowledge and
skills about both their jobs and the organization, providing employees the opportunity to be
ambassadors to the customer. This type of internal marketing to employees (Schultz,
Tannenbaum, & Lauterborn, 1992) leads them to be better customer ambassadors
(Lowenstein, 2006). In addition, employees are critical stakeholders in terms of corporate
social responsibility (Paine, 2003), and have been overlooked in favor of investors and even
the environment for an organization to be accountable to. It has been demonstrated in the
teams literature that happy employees leads to better service, which leads to happy, loyal
customers (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006). Finally, digital communication is a prevalent
method for developing relationships both internally and externally, as well as facilitating
information search (Rappa, 2006).
This study will incorporate in-depth interviews with executives from Starbucks, Wieden
& Kennedy, Wachovia, and SAS as well as focus groups with employees about their
perceptions of the importance of the link between internal and external communication.
Finally, a survey of both employees and customers will examine the role that internal
communication plays in employee trust and commitment.
A.4.3. Subjects. You should describe the subject population even if your study does not involve
direct interaction (e.g., existing records). Specify number, gender, ethnicity, race, and age. Specify
whether subjects are healthy volunteers or patients. If patients, specify any relevant disease or
condition and indicate how potential subjects will be identified.
There will be 4 interviews; 8 focus groups of 10 employees each (2 at each company) and surveys of
approximately 500 employees from Wieden & Kennedy, Wachovia, Starbucks, and SAS.
A.4.4. Inclusion/exclusion criteria. List required characteristics of potential subjects, and those that
preclude enrollment or involvement of subjects or their data. Justify exclusion of any group,
especially by criteria based on gender, ethnicity, race, or age. If pregnant women are excluded, or if
women who become pregnant are withdrawn, specific justification must be provided.
There are no exclusion criteria. All employees are eligible to participate.
147
A.4.5. Full description of the study design, methods and procedures. Describe the research
study. Discuss the study design; study procedures; sequential description of what subjects will be
asked to do; assignment of subjects to various arms of the study if applicable; doses; frequency and
route of administration of medication and other medical treatment if applicable; how data are to be
collected (questionnaire, interview, focus group or specific procedure such as physical examination,
venipuncture, etc.). Include information on who will collect data, who will conduct procedures or
measurements. Indicate the number and duration of contacts with each subject; outcome
measurements; and follow-up procedures. If the study involves medical treatment, distinguish
standard care procedures from those that are research. If the study is a clinical trial involving patients
as subjects and use of placebo control is involved, provide justification for the use of placebo
controls.
The study will begin with in-depth interviews of the four individuals mentioned. Interview questions
are in appendix D. Two focus groups will be conducted at each company. Focus group questions
are in appendix E. Finally, surveys will be conducted of approximately 500 employees. The e-
survey questions are listed in appendix F.
A.4.6. Benefits to subjects and/or society. Describe any potential for direct benefit to individual
subjects, as well as the benefit to society based on scientific knowledge to be gained; these should be
clearly distinguished. Consider the nature, magnitude, and likelihood of any direct benefit to
subjects. If there is no direct benefit to the individual subject, say so here and in the consent form (if
there is a consent form). Do not list monetary payment or other compensation as a benefit.
There are no known benefits nor risks to the individuals involved. The benefits will accrue to the
academic community who are trying to better understand this issue.
A.4.7. Full description of risks and measures to minimize risks. Include risk of psychosocial
harm (e.g., emotional distress, embarrassment, breach of confidentiality), economic harm (e.g., loss of
employment or insurability, loss of professional standing or reputation, loss of standing within the
community) and legal jeopardy (e.g., disclosure of illegal activity or negligence), as well as known
side effects of study medication, if applicable, and risk of pain and physical injury. Describe what
will be done to minimize these risks. Describe procedures for follow-up, when necessary, such as
when subjects are found to be in need of medical or psychological referral. If there is no direct
interaction with subjects, and risk is limited to breach of confidentiality (e.g., for existing data), state
this.
Employee participants will be asked to participate on a voluntary basis. All interviewees have
consented to participate. Focus group participants will be drawn from volunteers.
A.4.8. Data analysis. Tell how the qualitative and/or quantitative data will be analyzed. Explain
how the sample size is sufficient to achieve the study aims. This might include a formal power
calculation or explanation of why a small sample is sufficient (e.g., qualitative research, pilot studies).
The interview and focus group data will be analyzed using qualitative analysis for themes and/or
trends. The survey will be analyzed using SPSS.
A.4.9. Will you collect or receive any of the following identifiers? Does not apply to consent
forms.
148
__ No _X_ Yes If yes, check all that apply:
a. _X_Names
b. _X Telephone numbers
c. __ Any elements of dates (other than year) for dates directly related to an individual, including
birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death. For ages over 89: all elements of dates
(including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated
into a single category of age 90 and older
d. __ Any geographic subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city, county,
precinct, zip code and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code
e. __ Fax numbers
f. _X Electronic mail addresses
g. __ Social security numbers
h. __ Medical record numbers
i. __ Health plan beneficiary numbers
j. __ Account numbers
k. __ Certificate/license numbers
l. __ Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers (VIN), including license plate numbers
m. __ Device identifiers and serial numbers (e.g., implanted medical device)
n. __ Web universal resource locators (URLs)
o. __ Internet protocol (IP) address numbers
p. __ Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints
q. __ Full face photographic images and any comparable images
r. __ Any other unique identifying number, characteristic or code, other than dummy identifiers
that are not derived from actual identifiers and for which the re-identification key is maintained
by the health care provider and not disclosed to the researcher
A.4.10. Confidentiality of the data. Describe procedures for maintaining confidentiality of the data
you will collect or will receive. Describe how you will protect the data from access by those not
authorized. How will data be transmitted among research personnel? Where relevant, discuss the
potential for deductive disclosure (i.e., directly identifying subjects from a combination of indirect
IDs).
Data will be kept confidential because it will require password protection for access to it on my
personal laptop.
A.4.11. Data sharing. With whom will identifiable (contains any of the 18 identifiers listed in
question A.4.9 above) data be shared outside the immediate research team? For each, explain
confidentiality measures. Include data use agreements, if any.
__ No one
__ Coordinating Center:
__ Statisticians:
__ Consultants:
__ Other researchers:
__ Registries:
__ Sponsors:
__ External labs for additional testing:
__ Journals:
149
__ Publicly available dataset:
_X_ Other: My dissertation chair, Dr. Lois Boynton
A.4.12. Data security for storage and transmission. Please check all that apply.
For electronic data:
_X_ Secure network _X_ Password access __ Encryption
__ Other (describe):
__ Portable storage (e.g., laptop computer, flash drive)
Describe how data will be protected for any portable device:
For hardcopy data (including human biological specimens, CDs, tapes, etc.):
__ Data de-identified by research team (stripped of the 18 identifiers listed in question 7 above)
_X_ Locked suite or office
__ Locked cabinet
__ Data coded by research team with a master list secured and kept separately
__ Other (describe):
A.4.13. Post-study disposition of identifiable data or human biological materials. Describe your
plans for disposition of data or human biological specimens that are identifiable in any way (directly
or via indirect codes) once the study has ended. Describe your plan to destroy identifiers, if you will
do so.
Data will be kept locked up for five years.
Part A.5. The Consent Process and Consent Documentation (including
Waivers)
The standard consent process is for all subjects to sign a document containing all the elements of
informed consent, as specified in the federal regulations. Some or all of the elements of consent,
including signatures, may be altered or waived under certain circumstances.
• If you will obtain consent in any manner, complete section A.5.1.
• If you are obtaining consent, but requesting a waiver of the requirement for a signed consent
document, complete section A.5.2.
• If you are requesting a waiver of any or all of the elements of consent, complete section A.5.3.
You may need to complete more than one section. For example, if you are conducting a phone
survey with verbal consent, complete sections A.5.1, A.5.2, and possibly A.5.3.
A.5.1. Describe the process of obtaining informed consent from subjects. If children will be
enrolled as subjects, describe the provisions for obtaining parental permission and assent of the child.
If decisionally impaired adults are to be enrolled, describe the provision for obtaining surrogate
consent from a legally authorized representative (LAR). If non-English speaking people will be
enrolled, explain how consent in the native language will be obtained. Address both written
translation of the consent and the availability of oral interpretation. After you have completed this
part A.5.1, if you are not requesting a waiver of any type, you are done with Part A.5.; proceed to
Part B.
150
Consent will be obtained from interviewees prior to conducting the interviews. See Consent Form A.
Consent will be obtained from focus group participants at the start of the focus group session. See
Consent Form B.
Implied consent will be obtained from the survey participants as they begin the survey process. They
will be informed that the survey is voluntary and that they may quit at any time. See Consent Form
C.
A.5.2. Justification for a waiver of written (i.e., signed) consent. The default is for subjects to sign
a written document that contains all the elements of informed consent. Under limited circumstances,
the requirement for a signed consent form may be waived by the IRB if either of the following is true:
a. The only record linking the subject and the research would be the consent
document and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach
of confidentiality (e.g., study involves sensitive data that could be damaging if
disclosed).
Explain.
b. The research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and
involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of
the research context (e.g., phone survey).
Explain.
If you checked “yes” to either, will consent be oral? Will you give out a fact
sheet? Use an online consent form, or include information as part of the survey
itself, etc?
__ yes __ no
__ yes __ no
? If you have justified a waiver of written (signed) consent (A.5.2), you should complete A.5.3
only if your consent process will not include all the other elements of consent.
A.5.3. Justification for a full or partial waiver of consent. The default is for subjects to give
informed consent. A waiver might be requested for research involving only existing data or human
biological specimens (see also Part C). More rarely, it might be requested when the research design
requires withholding some study details at the outset (e.g., behavioral research involving deception).
In limited circumstances, parental permission may be waived. This section should also be completed
for a waiver of HIPAA authorization if research involves Protected Health Information (PHI) subject
to HIPAA regulation, such as patient records.
__ Requesting waiver of some elements (specify; see SOP 28 on the IRB web site):
__ Requesting waiver of consent entirely
If you check either of the boxes above, answer items a-f.. To justify a full waiver of the
requirement for informed consent, you must be able to answer “yes” (or “not applicable” for
question c) to items a-f. Insert brief explanations that support your answers.
a. Will the research involve no greater than minimal risk to subjects or to their
privacy?
Explain.
__ yes __ no
b. Is it true that the waiver will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of
subjects? (Consider the right of privacy and possible risk of breach of
__ yes __ no
151
confidentiality in light of the information you wish to gather.)
Explain.
c. When applicable to your study, do you have plans to provide subjects with
pertinent information after their participation is over? (e.g., Will you provide
details withheld during consent, or tell subjects if you found information with
direct clinical relevance? This may be an uncommon scenario.)
Explain.
__ yes __ not
applicable
d. Would the research be impracticable without the waiver? (If you checked
“yes,” explain how the requirement to obtain consent would make the research
impracticable, e.g., are most of the subjects lost to follow-up or deceased?).
Explain.
__ yes __ no
e. Is the risk to privacy reasonable in relation to benefits to be gained or the
importance of the knowledge to be gained?
Explain.
__ yes __ no
If you are accessing patient records for this research, you must also be able to answer “yes” to
item f to justify a waiver of HIPAA authorization from the subjects.
f. Would the research be impracticable if you could not record (or use) Protected
Health Information (PHI)? (If you checked “yes,” explain how not recording or
using PHI would make the research impracticable).
Explain.
__ yes __ no
Part B. Questions for Studies that Involve Direct Interaction with Human
Subjects
? If this does not apply to your study, do not submit this section.
B.1. Methods of recruiting. Describe how and where subjects will be identified and recruited.
Indicate who will do the recruiting, and tell how subjects will be contacted. Describe efforts to ensure
equal access to participation among women and minorities. Describe how you will protect the
privacy of potential subjects during recruitment. For prospective subjects whose status (e.g., as
patient or client), condition, or contact information is not publicly available (e.g., from a phone book
or public web site), the initial contact should be made with legitimate knowledge of the subjects’
circumstances. Ideally, the individual with such knowledge should seek prospective subjects’
permission to release names to the PI for recruitment. Alternatively, the knowledgeable individual
could provide information about the study, including contact information for the investigator, so that
interested prospective subjects can contact the investigator. Provide the IRB with a copy of any
document or script that will be used to obtain the patients’ permission for release of names or to
introduce the study. Check with your IRB for further guidance.
All participants will be recruited via email. Interviewees will receive a personal note of invitation to
participate (Form G). Focus group and survey participants will see an invitation to participate via
their company intranets or through email (Forms H & I).
152
B.2. Protected Health Information (PHI). If you need to access Protected Health Information
(PHI) to identify potential subjects who will then be contacted, you will need a limited waiver of
HIPAA authorization. If this applies to your study, please provide the following information.
a. Will the information collected be limited only to that necessary to contact the subjects to ask if
they are interested in participating in the study?
b. How will confidentiality/privacy be protected prior to ascertaining desire to participate?
c. When and how will you destroy the contact information if an individual declines participation?
B.3. Duration of entire study and duration of an individual subject’s participation, including
follow-up evaluation if applicable. Include the number of required contacts and approximate
duration of each contact.
The duration of the study will be from July 1, 2006 until May 1, 2007.
Interviewees will be contacted once for an invitation, once to set up a mutually convenient time to
talk, and once to be thanked for their participation.
Focus group participants will be contacted once via their company intranets to ask for their voluntary
participation. They will then be contacted via email once more to instruct them on the time for
the focus group. Finally, they will be contacted with thanks for their participation.
Survey participants will be contacted once via their company intranets to ask for their voluntary
participation. They will then be contacted via email once more with instructions on how to
complete the on-line survey.
B.4. Where will the subjects be studied? Describe locations where subjects will be studied, both
on and off the UNC-CH campus.
The interviewees and focus group participants will be studied in Portland, Oregon, Charlotte, NC,
RTP, NC, and Durham, NC. The employees may complete the surveys online from their offices
or from their home.
B.5. Privacy. Describe procedures that will ensure privacy of the subjects in this study. Examples
include the setting for interviews, phone conversations, or physical examinations; communication
methods or mailed materials (e.g., mailings should not indicate disease status or focus of study on the
envelope).
Interviews will be conducted in the privacy of their offices or via telephone.
B.6. Inducements for participation. Describe all inducements to participate, monetary or non-
monetary. If monetary, specify the amount and schedule for payments and how this will be prorated
if the subject withdraws (or is withdrawn) from the study prior to completing it. For compensation in
foreign currency, provide a US$ equivalent. Provide evidence that the amount is not coercive (e.g.,
describe purchasing power for foreign countries). Include food or refreshments that may be provided.
153
There are no inducements for participation with the interviewees. There will be cookies and bottled
water provided for the focus group participants. There are no inducements for the employees to
participate in the survey.
B.7. Costs to be borne by subjects. Include child care, travel, parking, clinic fees, diagnostic and
laboratory studies, drugs, devices, all professional fees, etc. If there are no costs to subjects other
than their time to participate, indicate this.
There are no costs to be borne by the participants, except for their time.
154
IRB Appendices
Appendix A: IRB Approval Form
Appendix B: Consent form for executive interviewees to participate in interviews
Appendix C: Consent form for employee interviewees to participate in interviews
Appendix D: Implied consent for e-survey
Appendix E: Executive interview questions
Appendix F: Employee interview questions
Appendix G: e-survey
Appendix H: Recruitment message for executive interviewees
Appendix I: Recruitment message for employee interviews
Appendix J: Recruitment message for survey participants
155
Appendix A. IRB Approval Form
156
157
Appendix B. Consent form for executive interviewees to participate in interviews
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Consent to Participate in a Research Study
Adult Participants
Social Behavioral Form
________________________________________________________________________
IRB Study #_____________________
Consent Form Version Date: ______________
Title of Study: The use of communication in relationship management of employees
Principal Investigator: Karen E. Mishra
UNC-Chapel Hill Department: School of Journalism and Mass Communication
UNC-Chapel Hill Phone number: 919-843-5866
Email Address: [email protected]
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Lois Boynton
Funding Source: n/a
Study Contact telephone number: 919-843-5866 or 919-619-0277
Study Contact email: [email protected]
_________________________________________________________________
What are some general things you should know about research studies?
You are being asked to take part in a research study. To join the study is voluntary.
You may refuse to join, or you may withdraw your consent to be in the study, for any reason, without penalty.
Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new information may help people in the future.
You may not receive any direct benefit from being in the research study. There also may be risks to being in
research studies.
Details about this study are discussed below. It is important that you understand this information so that you
can make an informed choice about being in this research study.
You will be given a copy of this consent form. You should ask the researchers named above, or staff members
who may assist them, any questions you have about this study at any time.
What is the purpose of this study?
The purpose of this research study is to learn about how organizations communicate with employees about its
vision and mission. This study is also interested in how organizations perceive employees as a distinct “public”
or stakeholder.
You are being asked to be in the study because you are recognized as an influential communications executive
in your community/industry and will be able to provide valuable insights as to the development and dispersion
of employee communication.
Are there any reasons you should not be in this study?
You should not be in this study if you prefer your work to remain confidential.
How many people will take part in this study?
If you decide to be in this study, you will be one of approximately 4 people in this research study.
How long will your part in this study last?
This study is expected to last approximately one hour. You will be asked to participate in one extended
interview, with follow-up questions asked via email.
158
What will happen if you take part in the study?
• If you participate in this study, I will first ask to arrange a time convenient to you to schedule an interview,
either in-person or by phone.
• Then, I will email follow-up questions as they arise, after we have completed the initial interview.
• The process will be completed by the end of April, 2007.
What are the possible benefits from being in this study?
Research is designed to benefit society by gaining new knowledge. You may also expect to benefit by obtaining
a copy of my paper, if you are interested in the results of my findings.
What are the possible risks or discomforts involved from being in this study?
There are no known risks to this study, unless you are uncomfortable talking about yourself and your work.
There may be uncommon or previously unknown risks. You should report any problems to the researcher.
How will your privacy be protected?
Privacy and confidentiality will be protected, if you wish. I would recommend using a pseudonym and
nonspecific title in order to protect your identity. I will be the only person to have specific access to your
interview comments. They will be locked in my office, and password protected on my computer.
Participants will be identified by pseudonym in any report or publication about this study. Although every effort
will be made to keep research records private, there may be times when federal or state law requires the
disclosure of such records, including personal information. This is very unlikely, but if disclosure is ever
required, UNC-Chapel Hill will take steps allowable by law to protect the privacy of personal information. In
some cases, your information in this research study could be reviewed by representatives of the University,
research sponsors, or government agencies for purposes such as quality control or safety.
Will you receive anything for being in this study?
You will not receive anything for taking part in this study.
Will it cost you anything to be in this study?
There will be no costs for being in the study, other than your time.
What if you are a UNC student?
You may choose not to be in the study or to stop being in the study before it is over at any time. This will not
affect your class standing or grades at UNC-Chapel Hill. You will not be offered or receive any special
consideration if you take part in this research.
What if you are a UNC employee?
Taking part in this research is not a part of your University duties, and refusing will not affect your job. You
will not be offered or receive any special job-related consideration if you take part in this research.
What if you have questions about this study?
You have the right to ask, and have answered, any questions you may have about this research. If you have
questions, or concerns, you should contact the researchers listed on the first page of this form.
What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?
All research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee that works to protect your
rights and welfare. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research
participant you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Behavioral Institutional Review
Board at 919-962-7761 or [email protected].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Participant’s Agreement:
I have read the information provided above. I have asked all the questions I have at this time. I voluntarily
159
agree to participate in this research study.
_________________________________________ _________________
Signature of Research Participant Date
_________________________________________
Printed Name of Research Participant
_________________________________________ _________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
_________________________________________
Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent
160
Appendix C. Consent form for employee interviewees
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Consent to Participate in a Research Study
Adult Participants
Social Behavioral Form
________________________________________________________________________
IRB Study #JOMC _______
Title of Study: The use of communication in relationship management of employees
Principal Investigator: Karen E. Mishra
UNC-Chapel Hill Department: School of Journalism and Mass Communication
UNC-Chapel Hill Phone number: 919-843-5866
Email Address: [email protected]
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Lois Boynton
Funding Source: n/a
Study Contact telephone number: 919-843-5866 or 919-619-0277
Study Contact email: [email protected]
_________________________________________________________________
What are some general things you should know about research studies?
You are being asked to take part in a research study. To join the study is voluntary.
You may refuse to join, or you may withdraw your consent to be in the study, for any reason, without penalty.
Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new information may help professional and
academic researchers in the future. You may not receive any direct benefit from being in the research study.
There also may be risks to being in research studies.
Details about this study are discussed below. It is important that you understand this information so that you
can make an informed choice about being in this research study. You will be given a copy of this consent form.
You should ask the researchers named above any questions you have about this study at any time.
What is the purpose of this study?
The purpose of this research study is to learn about how organizations communicate with employees about its
vision and mission. This study is also interested in how organizations perceive employees as a distinct “public”
or stakeholder.
You are being asked to be in the study because you are recognized as an influential communications manager in
your community/industry and will be able to provide valuable insights as to the development and dispersion of
employee communication.
Are there any reasons you should not be in this study?
You should not be in this study if you prefer your work to remain confidential.
How many people will take part in this study?
If you decide to be in this study, you will be one of approximately 4 people participating in a series of interviews in this
research study.
How long will your part in this study last?
This study is expected to last approximately 90 minutes. You will be asked to participate in one interview
session, with follow-up questions asked via e-mail.
161
What will happen if you take part in the study?
• If you participate in this study, I will first ask to arrange a time convenient to you to schedule the focus
group.
• Then, the interview will be scheduled and held at a date convenient to you.
• After the interview, I will email follow-up questions as they arise.
• The process will be completed by the end of March, 2007.
• Your participation on any question is voluntary. You may skip any question you choose not to answer and
you may also withdraw from participating at any time. The questions include:
1. Tell me about your background and work experience.
2. What is your current role in this organization?
3. How would you rate your company on the job it does communicating with you?
4. How would you rate the job your company does communicating to customers?
5. Are there different messages for employees than customers?
6. How do you think employees are treated in your company?
7. How does your company tell you about new products and services? About layoffs?
8. Where do you get good news from? Bad news?
What are the possible benefits from being in this study?
Research is designed to benefit society by gaining new knowledge. You may also expect to benefit by
participating in this study by obtaining a copy of my paper, if you are interested in the results of my findings.
What are the possible risks or discomforts involved from being in this study?
There are no known risks to this study, unless you are uncomfortable talking about yourself and your work.
There may be uncommon or previously unknown risks. You should report any problems to the researcher. I
will ask that all comments made during the focus group session be kept confidential.
How will your privacy be protected?
Privacy and confidentiality will be protected, if you wish, using a pseudonym. I will be the only person to have
specific access to your interview comments. They will be locked in my office, and password protected on my
computer.
Although every effort will be made to keep research records private, there may be times when federal or state
law requires the disclosure of such records, including personal information. This is very unlikely, but if
disclosure is ever required, UNC-Chapel Hill will take steps allowable by law to protect the privacy of personal
information. In some cases, your information in this research study could be reviewed by representatives of the
University, research sponsors, or government agencies for purposes such as quality control or safety.
Will you receive anything for being in this study?
You will not receive anything for taking part in this study.
Will it cost you anything to be in this study?
There will be no costs for being in the study, other than your time.
What if you have questions about this study?
You have the right to ask, and have answered, any questions you may have about this research. If you have
questions, or concerns, you should contact the researchers listed on the first page of this form.
162
What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?
All research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee that works to protect your
rights and welfare. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research
participant you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Behavioral Institutional Review
Board at 919-962-7761 or [email protected].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Participant’s Agreement:
I have read the information provided above. I have asked all the questions I have at this time. I voluntarily
agree to participate in this research study.
_________________________________________ _________________
Signature of Research Participant Date
_________________________________________ _________________ ____________
Printed Name of Research Participant email address mailing address
If you want a copy
_________________________________________ _________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
_________________________________________
Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent
163
Appendix D. Implied Consent for e-survey
By participating in this on-line survey, you agree to participate in a study being conducted by a
doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Your participation is
voluntary and you may quit at any time. All precautions have been taken so that there are no
risks to your participation, unless you feel uncomfortable answering questions about the
organization you work for and your job. If you have any questions about this study, you may
contact the principal investigator, Karen Mishra at [email protected] or 619-0277 or the
Institutional Review Board at 919-962-7761 or [email protected].
What are some general things you should know about research studies?
You are being asked to take part in a research study. To join the study is voluntary.
You may refuse to join, or you may withdraw your consent to be in the study, for any reason, without penalty.
Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new information may help professional and
academic researchers in the future. You may not receive any direct benefit from being in the research study.
There also may be risks to being in research studies.
Details about this study are discussed below. It is important that you understand this information so that you
can make an informed choice about being in this research study. You will be given a copy of this consent form.
You should ask the researchers named above any questions you have about this study at any time.
What is the purpose of this study?
The purpose of this research study is to learn about how organizations communicate with employees about its
vision and mission. This study is also interested in how organizations perceive employees as a distinct “public”
or stakeholder.
Are there any reasons you should not be in this study?
You should not be in this study if you prefer your opinions about your workplace to remain confidential.
How many people will take part in this study?
If you decide to be in this study, you will be one of approximately 500 people participating in this survey in this research
study.
How long will your part in this study last?
This study is expected to last approximately 15 minutes. You will be asked to participate in one survey session.
What are the possible benefits from being in this study?
Research is designed to benefit society by gaining new knowledge. You may also expect to benefit by
participating in this study by obtaining a copy of my paper, if you are interested in the results of my findings.
What are the possible risks or discomforts involved from being in this study?
There are no known risks to this study, unless you are uncomfortable talking about yourself and your work.
There may be uncommon or previously unknown risks. You should report any problems to the researcher.
How will your privacy be protected?
Privacy and confidentiality will be protected, as your name will not be asked, only demographic information. I
will be the only person to have specific access to your interview comments. They will be locked in my office,
and password protected on my computer.
Although every effort will be made to keep research records private, there may be times when federal or state
law requires the disclosure of such records, including personal information. This is very unlikely, but if
disclosure is ever required, UNC-Chapel Hill will take steps allowable by law to protect the privacy of personal
164
information. In some cases, your information in this research study could be reviewed by representatives of the
University, research sponsors, or government agencies for purposes such as quality control or safety.
Will you receive anything for being in this study?
You will not receive anything for taking part in this study.
Will it cost you anything to be in this study?
There will be no costs for being in the study, other than your time.
What if you have questions about this study?
You have the right to ask, and have answered, any questions you may have about this research. If you have
questions, or concerns, you should contact the researchers listed on the first page of this form.
What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?
All research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee that works to protect your
rights and welfare. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research
participant you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Behavioral Institutional Review
Board at 919-962-7761 or [email protected].
165
Appendix E. Executive Interview Questions
(with probing questions)
1. Tell me about your background and work experience.
2. What is your current role in this company?
Probes:
o What department do you work in?
o How many people do you manage?
o What other departments do you interact with on a daily basis?
o Who do you report to?
3. How do you define corporate communication?
Probes:
o What is that definition based upon?
o What is your experience with corporate communication?
o Who is responsible for corporate communication at your company?
4. What role does corporate communication play in your company?
Probes:
o Where is the focal point of the company’s efforts?
o Is it focused on customers?
o Is it focused on employees?
o Is it focused on investors?
o Is it focused on prospective customers?
o Is it focused on new product introductions? Brand image?
5. What role do employees play in corporate communication?
Probes:
o Are employees included in the corporate communication efforts?
o Do employees help craft the message to customers?
o Are employees aware of the message in order to help deliver the message?
6. How would you describe the internal employee relations in your organization?
Probes:
o Do you have a union in your company? Why or why not?
o Do you have much turnover here? Why or why not?
o What is the turnover rate here in a given year?
o What do you attribute that rate to?
7. What is your definition of effective communication or what makes communication with
employees effective?
8. What methods are most effective for management to communicate with employees?
Probes: Face-to-face; email; memos
166
9. Whose role is it to ensure that there is effective communications between the organization
and employees?
Probes:
o Each manager
o Human resources
o Public relations
10. What is the difference between internal and external communications for your firm?
Probes:
o Do you have separate staffs?
o Do you have separate managers?
o Do these groups work together in crafting the messages?
11. How does your perception of effective communication impact your perception of your
company?
Probes:
• Employees who are efficient?
• Loyal employees?
• Good retention rate?
• Good customer relationships?
• Positive reputation for the firm?
167
Appendix F. Employee Interview Questions
1. Tell me about your background and work experience.
2. What is your current role in this organization?
Probe: How long have your worked here?
3. How would you rate your company on the job it does communicating with you?
Probes:
• Reason for your rating
• Do they tell you things?
• Do they ask you things?
• How often?
• What kind of information does the company provide?
• How trustworthy is your company?
4. How would you rate the job your company does communicating to customers?
Probes:
• Reason for your rating
• Do they tell them things?
• Do they ask them things?
• How often?
• What kind of information does the company provide?
• How trustworthy is your company?
5. Are there different messages for employees than customers?
Probe:
• How do the messages compare?
6. How do you think employees are treated in your company?
Probe:
• How do you think you are treated?
• How happy are most employees?
7. How does your company tell you about new products and services? About layoffs?
Probe: what are the differences in how the company delivers good or bad news?
8. Where do you get good news from? Bad news?
Probe:
• How does the grapevine work?
• What sources do you trust for good or bad news?
168
Appendix G. e-Survey of Communication Strategies with Employees as Publics
When your company communicates to you about new products,
services, or initiatives…
1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree
1. My manager uses face-to-face communication.
2. My manager uses the telephone to communicate.
3. My manager uses email to communicate.
In general, how much do you agree or disagree with these
statements:
4. My manager understands customers needs well.
5. My manager understands employees needs well.
6. My manager cooperates with us to help do the job well.
7. My manager provides valuable feedback.
8. My manager makes recommendations for continuous improvement on
an ongoing basis.
To what extent would you characterize face-to-face communication
as having the ability to:
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
9. Give and receive timely feedback
10. Provide non-verbal feedback (facial gestures, posture, etc.)
11. Provide immediate feedback
12. Convey multiple types of information (verbal and nonverbal)
To what extent would you characterize written communication
(such as memos or letters) as having the ability to:
13. Give and receive timely feedback
14. Provide non-verbal feedback
15. Provide immediate feedback
16. Convey multiple types of information (verbal and nonverbal)
To what extent would you characterize electronic communication
(such as email or intranets) as having the ability to:
17. Give and receive timely feedback
18. Provide non-verbal feedback
19. Provide immediate feedback
20. Convey multiple types of information (verbal and nonverbal)
Control Mutuality
To what extent to you agree with these statements?
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
21. This company and people like me are attentive to what each other say.
22. This company believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate.
23. In dealing with people like me, this company has a tendency to throw its
weight around.
169
24. This company really listens to what people like me have to say.
25. The management of this company gives people like me enough say in
the decision-making process.
26. When I have an opportunity to interact with the management of this
company, I feel that I have some sense of control over the situation.
27. This company won’t cooperate with people like me.
28. I believe people like me have influence on the decision-makers of this
company.
Communal Relationships
29. This company does not especially enjoy giving others aid.
30. This company is very concerned about the welfare of people like me.
31. I feel that this company takes advantage of people who are vulnerable.
32. I think that this company succeeds by stepping on other people.
33. This company helps people like me without expecting anything in
return.
34. I don’t consider this to be a particularly helpful company for me.
35. I feel that this company tries to get the upper hand.
Exchange Relationships
36. Whenever this company gives or offers something to people like me, it
generally expects something in return.
37. Even though people like me have had a relationship with this company
for a long time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us
a favor.
38. This company will compromise with people like me when it knows that
it will gain something.
39. This company takes care of people who are likely to reward the
organization.
Trust
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
40. This company treats people like me fairly and justly.
41. Whenever this company makes an important decision, I know it will be
concerned about people like me.
42. This company can be relied on to keep its promises
43. I believe that this company takes the opinions of people like me into
account when making decisions.
44. I feel very confident about this company’s expertise.
170
45. This company has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.
46. Sound principles seem to guide this company’s behavior.
47. This company does not mislead people like me.
48. I am very willing to let this company make decisions for people like me.
49. I think it is important to watch this company closely so that it does not
take advantage of people like me.
50. This company is known to be successful at the things it tries to do.
Trust
51. My manager is straightforward with me
52. My manager is competent and knowledgeable
53. My manager does not try to get out of his/her commitments
54. My manager does not take advantage of me
55. My manager communicates honestly with me
56. My manager can contribute to my company’s success
57. My manager behaves consistently
58. My manager does not exploit me
59. My manager does not mislead me in his/her communications
60. My manager can help my company survive during the next decade
61. My manager is reliable
62. My manager cares about my best interests
63. My manager does not withhold important information from me
64. My manager is concerned for my welfare
65. My manager can be counted on
66. My manager can help solve important problems faced by my company
171
67. My manager can be trusted
68. If I had my way, I wouldn't let my company have any influence over
issues that are important to me.
69. I would be willing to let my company have complete control over my
future in this company.
70. I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on my company.
71. I would be comfortable giving my company a task or problem which
was critical to me, even if I could not monitor his/her (its) actions.
72. If someone questioned my company's motives, I would give my
company the benefit of the doubt.
Commitment
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
73. I feel that this company is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to
people like me.
74. I can see that this company wants to maintain a relationship with people
like me
75. There is a long-lasting bond between this company and people like me
76. Compared to other companies I have worked for, I value my
relationship with this company more
77. I would rather work together with this company than not
78. I have no desire to have a relationship with this company.
79. I feel a sense of loyalty to this company.
80. I could not care less about this organization.
Affective Commitment
81. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this company
82. I enjoy discussing my company with people outside it
83. I really feel as if this company’s problems are my own
84. I think I could easily become as attached to another
company as I am to this one
85. I do not feel like “part of the family” at this company
86. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this company
172
87. This company has a great deal of personal meaning for me
88. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this company
Continuance Commitment
89. It would be very hard for me to leave this company right now, even if I
wanted to
90. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted
to leave my company now
91. It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave this company in the near future
92. Right now, staying with this company is a matter of necessity as much
as desire
93. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this company
94. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this company would
be the lack of available alternatives
95. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having
another one lined up
96. One of the major reasons I continue to work for my company is that
another company may not match the overall benefits I have here
Normative Commitment
97. If I had not already put so much of myself into this company, I might
consider working elsewhere
98. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer
99. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave
this company right now
100. I would feel guilty if I left my company right now
101. This company deserves my loyalty
102. I would not leave my company right now because I have a sense of
obligation to the people in it
103. I owe a great deal to this company
Describe your agreement with this statement:
Not at all (1); To a Very Great Extent (7)
104. My company has an outstanding reputation.
105. If you are getting bad news from your manager, do you prefer
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
173
• Email communication
106. If you are getting good news from your manager, do you prefer
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
107. If you are giving bad news to your employees, do you prefer using
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
108. If you are giving good news to your employees, do you prefer using
• Face-to-face communication
• Written communication
• Email communication
109. What is your age?
110. What is your gender?
111. What is your ethnicity?
112. What is your level of education?
113. What is your job at this company? Job Title?
114. How many people are under your direct supervision?
115. How long have you worked at this company?
116. How much longer do you expect to work at this company?
174
Appendix H: Recruitment message for executive interviewees
My name is Karen Mishra and I’m a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. I’m writing my dissertation on employee communication and I would like to
interview you about your firm’s employee communication and what your philosophy is about
employee communication.
The interview would take no more than one hour and I’m happy to schedule it at your
convenience, either in-person or on the phone. I’m also happy to send you the list of
questions ahead of time in order for you to know exactly what this study entails. I’m hoping
that you’ll have time early this fall to participate in the interview.
If you are interested in participating, please contact me at [email protected] or 919-619-
0277.
Thank you.
Karen Mishra
Roy H. Park Fellow
UNC
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
[email protected]
175
Appendix I: Recruitment message for employee interviews
My name is Karen Mishra and I’m a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. I’m writing my dissertation on employee communication and I would like to
invite you to participate in an interview about how your firm handles employee
communication and what your philosophy is about employee communication.
The interview would take no more than one hour. I’m also happy to send you the list of
questions ahead of time in order for you to know exactly what this study entails. I’m hoping
that you’ll have time early this fall to participate in this interview. The date for your
interview is __________________.
If you are interested in participating, please contact me at [email protected] or 919-619-
0277.
Thank you.
Karen Mishra
Roy H. Park Fellow
UNC
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
[email protected]
176
Appendix J: Recruitment message for survey participants
My name is Karen Mishra and I’m a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. I’m writing my dissertation on employee communication and I would like to
invite you to participate in a survey about how your firm handles employee communication.
The survey would take no more than 15 minutes to complete and can be completed on-line,
as your leisure. I’m hoping that you’ll have time in one month to participate in the survey.
The survey will be ready for you to take the first week of December.
If you are interested in participating, please contact me at [email protected] or 919-619-
0277 and send me your email address. I will keep this information confidential and will only
use it to send you the link for the survey.
Thank you.
Karen Mishra
Roy H. Park Fellow
UNC
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
[email protected]
177
Appendix B. Analytical Memo
May 1, 2006
1. If the SB employees I meet are so happy, what causes this? I’m interested because it is
one of the things that bring me back to Starbucks.
• Is it the type of communication do they use on a daily basis with their manager?
This began in a company that has happy employees, so I figured that the
managers and/or company must be doing well in order for the employees to be so
happy and to keep their jobs for so long.
• Is it a nice boss?
• Do they feel involved in the mission of the organization?
2. I found that these employees are happier when they have good relationships with their
manager, which includes good communication.
• Communication means being able to talk
• Communication also means their boss is a good listener
3. Employees talk more about interpersonal communication being the critical link as opposed
to a formal communications plan.
4. I need to ask the Executives I interview how they feel about communication skills and
whether they feel that specific efforts to improve communication between employees and
managers make an important difference to the company’s mission.
178
5. Maybe the flow of a model looks like this:
6. The employee concepts of talking, feedback and open-minded manager all fit under the
heading of “good communication.” The concepts of people and customer impact all have to
do with happy employees and reputation.
7. Executives don’t seem to use the same words as employees. They talk about the
communication tools they have to use to have a dialogue with key audiences, such as face-to-
face communication or owning all other communication channels. This could also fit under
good communication, but only if it is done well. Executives also talk about their twin goals
of employee engagement and managing reputation. Does engagement lead to happy
employees? Does managing a reputation automatically mean that a positive one will
emerge?
Good
Communication
Happy
Trusting
Employees
Happy
customers;
good
reputation
179
Appendix C. Theoretical Memo
Relationship Management is the concept that relates how public relations professionals
build relationships with important publics. The question is: how do they build those
relationships? What specific skills are important?
• Organizational communication: used in CSR literature to describe how organizations
communicate with employees
• Internal public relations: this is a new term that describes how PR professionals
include employees as publics
• Internal marketing: this term is not used much in the marketing literature, but seems
intuitive
• Inward marketing: This is what Bob Lauterborn calls internal communication. He
feels like this is a missing component of the 4Cs.
1. Who is responsible for this?
2. What is the role of public relations?
3. Is there a role in PR that includes this job?
4. The executive interviews reveal that these corporate communications executives do not
use any of these words—they use internal communication to describe what they do. To
them, this is a new and distinctive niche. Maybe they are right. How does this fit with the
literature on publics, trust and commitment?
5. The survey will use the questions on rich communication as a proxy for internal
communication, as well as established measures on publics, trust, and commitment.
180
Appendix D. List of Respondents’ Employers
Question 91: What company or industry do you work for?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
10 8.9 8.9 8.9
ad/pr agency
1 .9 .9 9.8
advertising agency/marketing
services
1 .9 .9 10.7
Aircraft systems
manufacturing
1 .9 .9 11.6
Automotive Manufacturing
Supplier
1 .9 .9 12.5
Bank of America
2 1.8 1.8 14.3
banking
1 .9 .9 15.2
Banking
2 1.8 1.8 17.0
BASF Corporation /
Chemical Industry
1 .9 .9 17.9
Capstrat Communications
1 .9 .9 18.8
Chemical Industry
1 .9 .9 19.6
Chemical Multinational
Supplier
1 .9 .9 20.5
Commercial
1 .9 .9 21.4
communications
1 .9 .9 22.3
con-e-co
1 .9 .9 23.2
Concrete Equipment
Company, Inc.
1 .9 .9 24.1
construction products
1 .9 .9 25.0
Consumer Goods, E & J
Gallo Winery
1 .9 .9 25.9
Consumer package goods
1 .9 .9 26.8
Curtiss-Wright Controls -
Aerospace and
Defense/Industrial
1 .9 .9 27.7
Durable heating/cooling
goods
1 .9 .9 28.6
education
1 .9 .9 29.5
Education
1 .9 .9 30.4
Electronics Industry
1 .9 .9 31.3
financial services
1 .9 .9 32.1
Financial services
1 .9 .9 33.0
Financial Services
3 2.7 2.7 35.7
Financial Services Industry,
BB&T
1 .9 .9 36.6
Valid
Hanesbrands, Inc. Apparel
industry
1 .9 .9 37.5
181
Health Insurance
1 .9 .9 38.4
Heavy duty truck
manufacturer
1 .9 .9 39.3
heavy duty truck
manufacturer and distributor
1 .9 .9 40.2
HR
1 .9 .9 41.1
Hubbell Inc. Electrical
Products and Engineering
1 .9 .9 42.0
IBM
1 .9 .9 42.9
LONDON MACHINERY
(0SHKOSH TRUCK CORP)
1 .9 .9 43.8
London Machinery Inc.
1 .9 .9 44.6
London Machinery INc.
1 .9 .9 45.5
manufacturing
3 2.7 2.7 48.2
Manufacturing
1 .9 .9 49.1
MANUFACTURING
2 1.8 1.8 50.9
Marketing
1 .9 .9 51.8
marketing communications
1 .9 .9 52.7
Marketing Communications
1 .9 .9 53.6
McNeilus
3 2.7 2.7 56.3
McNeilus Companies -
Refuse Division
1 .9 .9 57.1
McNeilus Companies
3 2.7 2.7 59.8
McNeilus Refuse
2 1.8 1.8 61.6
McNeilus Truck and
Manufacturing
1 .9 .9 62.5
Mortgage Industry/Finance
1 .9 .9 63.4
MTM
1 .9 .9 64.3
Non-profit - youth
1 .9 .9 65.2
non profit
1 .9 .9 66.1
nonprofit health field
1 .9 .9 67.0
Optical Retail
1 .9 .9 67.9
Oshkosh Truck
1 .9 .9 68.8
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
3 2.7 2.7 71.4
Oshkosh Truck Corporation,
Heavy Manufacturing
1 .9 .9 72.3
Pepsi
1 .9 .9 73.2
pharmaceutical
1 .9 .9 74.1
Pharmaceutical sales
1 .9 .9 75.0
PR
1 .9 .9 75.9
pr, advertising
1 .9 .9 76.8
182
Public Relations
2 1.8 1.8 78.6
Pulte Homes - Residential
Housing.
1 .9 .9 79.5
Railroad
1 .9 .9 80.4
Real Estate
1 .9 .9 81.3
RJ Reynolds
1 .9 .9 82.1
SAS -- computer
software/services
1 .9 .9 83.0
software
1 .9 .9 83.9
SouthLight, substance abuse
treatment
1 .9 .9 84.8
sports-Baltimore Ravens
1 .9 .9 85.7
St. Jude Medical
1 .9 .9 86.6
Telecom
1 .9 .9 87.5
television
1 .9 .9 88.4
Textile Industry
1 .9 .9 89.3
Time Warner
1 .9 .9 90.2
Tobacco
2 1.8 1.8 92.0
Tobacco Company
1 .9 .9 92.9
Transportation
1 .9 .9 93.8
Truck manufacturing
1 .9 .9 94.6
Wachovia
3 2.7 2.7 97.3
Wachovia Bank
1 .9 .9 98.2
Wachovia Bank / Wachovia
Securities
1 .9 .9 99.1
Wake Forest University,
Babcock Graduate School of
Management
1 .9 .9 100.0
Total
112 100.0 100.0
183
REFERENCES
Alsop, R. J. (2004, April 13). Reputation Officers: A New Breed of Executive, Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved on October 7, 2006 from
http://www.careerjournal.com/hrcenter/articles/20040413-alsop.html.
Altus, C. (2006, July 17). Happy staffers will keep your clients smiling. PR Week. p. 9.
Black, L. D. (2004). How companies manage for good. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Monash University, Melbourne.
Botan, C. H. (1992). International public relations: Critique and reformulation. Public
Relations Review, 18(2), 149-160.
Botan, C. H. & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field. Journal of
Communication, 54(4), 645-661.
Broom,G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and Theory of organization-public
relationships. In J.A. Ledingham & S.D. Bruning (Eds.) Public relations and
relationship management, (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Capella, J. N. (1991). Mutual adaptation and relativity of measurement. In B. M.
Montgomery & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 103-117).
New York: Guilford.
Carr, J. (1991). Communicating and relating. (3
rd
Ed.). USA: WC Brown.
Carroll, A. B. (2006, July 29). Trust is key when rating great workplaces. Retrieved 9
August 2006 from www.onlineathens.com.
Carroll, A. B. and Buchholtz, A. K. (2000). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder
management (4
th
ed.): Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Cheney, G. (1999). Values at work. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Chia, J. (2005). Measuring the immeasurable. Retrieved on October 9, 2006 from
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal_Files/Evaluation_Issue/CHIA_
ARTICLE.pdf#search=%22%20joy%20chia%20measuring%20the%20immeasurable%2
2.
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations (7
th
ed.)
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection,
and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11,
355-366.
184
Davis, A. (2000). Communicate to create learning, Public Relations Tactics 7(2): 26.
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of colonization. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and its problems. Chicago: Swallow.
Dougall, E. K. (2005). The ecology of public opinion environments and the evolution of
organization-activist relationships: A comparative case study of Australia's major
banks, 1981-2001. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane.
Dozier, D. M. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication
management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
DuBrin, A. (2000). Applying psychology: individual and organizational effectiveness.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Edelman Public Relations Agency (2006). The trust barometer. Retrieved 26 June 2006
from www.edelman.com.
Ehling, W. P., White, J., & Grunig, J. E. (1992). Public relations and marketing practices. In
J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp.
357-393). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational
relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy, Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258.
Forrester Research (2007). Transforming employees into brand advocates. Cambridge, MA.
Fortune’s “Most Admired” ranking for 2006 retrieved from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/full_list/ on October 14, 2006.
Foss, Sonja K. (2004). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (3
rd
ed.). Waveland
Press, Longgrove, IL.
Gaines-Ross, L. (2006, June 29). Coming soon to a company near you…the CRO? In
Bulldog Reporter’s Daily ‘Dog online newsletter.’ Retrieved 26 June 2006 from
www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog/issues/1_1/dailydog_barks_bites/index.html.
Gavin, M. B., & Mayer, R. C.(2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds
the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal 48(5),
874-888.
185
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books,
6-10.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510.
Gronstedt, A. (2000). The customer century: Lessons from world-class companies in
integrated marketing communication. New York: Routledge.
Grossman, D. (2006, July 10). Communication builds trust within. PR Week, p. 8.
Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory.
In C. H. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 17-44). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships.
Public Relations Review 91(2), 121-139.
Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (2006). The excellence theory. In C. Botan &
V.Hazelton (Eds.) Public relations theory II (pp.21-62), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P (1992). What is an effective organization? In J.
E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.),
Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65-90). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & Hon, L (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.
Retrieved 26 June 2006 from www.instituteforpr.com. Published by the Institute for
Public Relations Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation: Gainesville, FL.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). Antecedents of Relationship and outcomes, In J.A.
Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.) Public relations and relationship management (pp.
23-53), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding and decoding in the television discourse. In S. Hall (ed). Culture,
media, language (136). London: Hutchison.
Hazleton, V., & Kennan, W. (2000). Social capital: Reconceptualizing the bottom line.
Corporate Communications 5(2), 81.
Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict
management strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD.
186
Hutton, J. G., Goodman, M. B., Alexander, J. B., & Genest, C. M. (2001). Reputation
management: The new face of corporate public relations? Public Relations Review 27
247-261.
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005) Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review 31(2),
277-280.
Kelleher, T. (2001). Public relations roles and media choice. Journal of Public Relations
Research 13(4), 303-320.
Keller, E., & Berry, J. (2003). The influentials. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Kennan, W. R., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Internal public relations, social capital, and the role
of effective organizational communication. In C. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.) Public
relations theory II (pp. 311-338). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
questions, Annual Review of Psychology 50, 569-598.
Kruckeberg, D. (2000). Public relations: Toward a global professionalism. In J.A.
Ledingham & S.D. Bruning (Eds.) Public Relations as Relationship Management,
Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.
Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (1988). Public relations and community: A reconstructed
theory. New York: Praeger.
Lauterborn, R. F. (2004). Personal conversation about Inward Marketing.
Ledingham, J. A. (2006). Relationship management: A general theory of public relations. In
C. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 465-483). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum Associates.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations:
Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55-65.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudinal study of organization-public
relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of
relationships management. In J.A. Ledingham & S.D. Bruning’s (Eds.) Public relations
as relationship management (pp. 55-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
L’Etang, J. (1996). Corporate responsibility and public relations ethics. In J. L’Etang, & M.
Pieczka (Eds.), Critical perspectives in public relations (pp. 82-105). London:
International Thomson Business Press.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 63, 967-985.
187
Lievrouw, L. A., & Finn, T. A. (1990). Identifying the common dimensions of
communication: The communication systems model. In B. Ruben & L. Lievrouw (Eds.),
Mediation, information, and communication: Information and behavior 3 (pp. 37-65).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Lowenstein, M. (2006, February 14). The trust equation: Build employee relationship
credibility, rapport and integrity to leverage customer advocacy. CRMGuru.
Retrieved March 6, 2006 from http://www.Crmguru.com.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. R. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness:
An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(1), 97-
108.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3), 709-734.
Miles, R. H. (1987). Managing the corporate social environment-A grounded theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mishra, K. E. & Li, C. (working paper). Blogging in the Fortune 500 U.S. and Chinese
Websites.
Mishra, K. E., & Mishra, A. (working paper). The Influence of Feelings-as-Information on
Trust Judgments over Time.
Mishra, A. K. & Mishra, K. E. (2005). Trust from near and far: Organizational commitment
and turnover in franchise-based organizations. Presented at the 65
th
annual meeting of
the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust, in R.
Kramer and T. Tyler (eds.) Trust in organizations (pp. 261-287). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
National Consumers League press release (2006, May 31). Survey: American consumers’
definition of the socially responsible company runs counter to established beliefs.
National Consumers League, Fleishman-Hillard Examine Public Attitudes and
Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility, Release Date: May 31, 2006.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage Press.
188
Northcutt, N., & McCoy, D. (2004). Interactive qualitative analysis: A systems methods for
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Oakland, J. S. (2003). Total quality management. (3
rd
ed). Butterworth-Heinemann.
Omachonu, V. K., & Ross, J. E. (2004). Principles of total quality (3
rd
ed). Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Pacanowsky, M. E., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as
cultural performance, Communication Monographs 50(2), 126-147.
Paine, L. S. (2003). Value Shift. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Paine, K. D. (1994). Move over TQM! Benchmarking is the new tool for the ‘90s.
Communication World 11(6), 42-45.
Paine, K. D. (2003). Guidelines for measuring trust in organizations. Retrieved 26 June
2006 from www.instituteforpr.com. Published by The Institute for Public Relations.
Plummer, J. (2005). Editorial: The fragile nature of corporate reputation. Journal of
Advertising 34(3),289.
Post, J. E, Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation. Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Pratt, C. B. (2006). Reformulating the emerging theory of corporate social responsibility as
good governance. In C. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 249-
277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associations.
Rappa, M. (2006). www.digitalenterprise.org
Reichheld, F. F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & May, S. K. (2004). Information adequacy, job
satisfaction and organizational culture in a dispersed-network organization. Journal of
Applied Communication 32(1), 28-54.
Salkind, N. J. (2004). Statistics for people who hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schultz, D. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Lauterborn, R. F. (1992). Integrated marketing
communications. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Books.
Shaw, K. (2005). Getting leaders involved in communication strategy. Strategic
Communication Management 9(6), 14-17.
189
Sparks, B. A., Bradley, G. L., & Callan, V. J. (1997). The impact of staff empowerment and
communication style on customer evaluations: The special case of service failure.
Psychology & Marketing, 14(5), 475-493.
Steil, L. K., Barker, L. L., & Watsoh, K. W. (1983) Effective listening: Key to your success.
NY: Random House.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory, (2
nd
Ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Sudhakar, B., & Patil, S. M. (2006). Measuring Up. Communication World 23(5), 32-35.
Taylor, M. (2004). Exploring public relations in Croatia through relational communication
and media richness theories. Public Relations Review 30(2), 145-160.
Thomlinson, T. D. (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations. In
J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning’s (Eds.) Public relations as relationship management
(pp.177-203). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Toth, E. L. (2000). From personal influence to interpersonal influence: A model for
relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning’s (Eds.) Public relations
as relationship management (pp. 205-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Trevino, L. K., Webster, J., and Stein, E. W. (2000). Making connections: Complementary
influences on communication media choices, attitudes, and use. Organization Science
11(2), 163-182.
Trevino, L. K. (2006, June 12). Personal communication.
University of Texas anonymous description of research methods. Retrieved August 12, 2006
from
http://www.utexas.edu/academic/diia/assessment/iar/how_to/methods/survey_tables_pec
omparison.pdf.
Vercic, D., & Grunig, J. E. (1995, July). The origins of public relations theory in economics
and strategic management. Paper presented to the Second International Public Relations
Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia.
Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Stank, T., Goldsby, T. J., & Markland, R. E. (2004). The
performance implications of media richness in a business-to-business service
environment: Direct versus indirect effects. Management Science 50(8), 1106-1119.
Walton, R. (1969). Interpersonal peacemaking. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wilson, L. J. (1994). The return of Gemeinschaft: A theory of public relations and corporate
community relations as relationship building. In A.F. Alkhafaji (Ed.), Business research
190
yearbook: Global business perspectives 1 (pp. 135-141). Lanham, MD: University Press
of America.
Wilson, L. J. (2000). Building employee and community relationships through volunteerism:
A case study. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning’s (Eds.) Public relations as
relationship management (pp. 137-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J.R. (2003). Mass media research: An introduction, 7
th
Ed.,
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson.
Yang, S. U., & Grunig, J. E. (2005). Decomposing organizational reputation: The effects of
organization-public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organizations
and evaluations of organizational performance, Journal of Communication Management
9(4), 305-325.
Zelnak, S. (2006). Interview with Dennis Michael, Producer/Host on Sky Radio. Podcast
Retrieved June 27, 2006 from http://www.martinmarietta.com/Corporate/profile.asp.
doc_840700783.pdf