Value of Communication - Approaches to Assessment of Employee Valuations of IC

The value of communication within organisations: approaches to assessment of employee valuations of internal communication

Kevin Ruck

Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, [email protected]

1. Introduction

In the development of the understanding of the value of intangible organisational

assets, the role of communication is becoming an increasingly important factor

(Ritter, 2003 p. 50). Communication within organizations is linked to higher levels of

performance and service (Tourish and Hargie, 2009 pp. 10-15) generating

communication capital (Malmelin, 2007 p. 298). This is related to the concept of

social capital that is becoming a more popular management topic (Lee, 2009),

grounded in organisational relationships. Intrinsic to this is the importance of

assessing internal communication. Many well established tools developed in the

1970s are still used, such as the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ),

the ICA Audit, the Organizational Communication Development audit, and the

Organizational Communication scale (Clampitt, 2009 pp. 58-61).

This paper explores the value of internal communication for organizations and

employees and argues that, in a fast changing communication environment,

traditional approaches to assessment are becoming outdated. They are focused on

process, volume and channels rather than content and dialogue. They also omit the

link to organisational identification and engagement and are too reliant on a positivist

research philosophy and questionnaires. Furthermore, assessment of internal

communication should now be revised to take more account of the impact of social

media, within a wider context of medium theory.

1 | P a g e 8 C o p y r i g h t K e v i n R u c k

2. Philosophies of assessment

Hargie and Tourish (2009) and Downs and Adrian (2004) outline a broad range of

approaches to assessing organizational communication. These include

questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, data collection log-sheets, and

communication network analysis. However, little attention is given to the underlying

philosophy for the approach taken. An audit, according to Tourish and Hargie (2009

p. 410) is by its nature is designed to be setting specific and uses already validated

approaches. An epistemological approach reflects a researcher’s beliefs or

“worldview” (Creswell, 2009, p.6) though this may not always be explicit (Easterby-

Smith et al., 2008, p. 63). According to Crotty (1998, p.4), epistemology drives

research; it is the starting point that leads on to the theoretical perspective, which

leads to the methodology and then the methods used. Research methods are

consequently “characteristic” of the epistemological position (Easterby-Smith et al,

2008, p62).

This is most evident in the assertion that “there is a fundamental difference between

the subject matter of the natural sciences and the social sciences and that an

epistemology is required that will reflect and capitalize upon that difference” (Bryman

and Bell, 2007, p. 20).The positivist position is associated with natural science based

upon discovery, hypotheses, experiments, measurement, verification/falsification,

and causality (Easterby-Smith et al, 2008, p63). In effect, the philosophical

assumption is that there is a social reality that is external and objective and “data,

evidence, and rational considerations shape knowledge” (Cresswell, 2009, p7). This

is associated primarily with a quantitative research methodology. However, data,

evidence, and rational considerations are also intrinsic to a qualitative methodology,

albeit from a more reflective than objective perspective. The term “rational” here is

loaded, as it may be used to imply more useful, “scientific” and therefore credible

thinking.

An alternative relativist (or realist) position allows for observers to have different

viewpoints (unlike positivism); “what counts for the truth can vary from place to place

and from time to time” (Collins, 1983) cited in Easterby-Smith et al (2008, p62).

Relativism is linked to exposure, propositions, triangulation, survey, probability, and

correlation (Easterby-Smith et al, 2008, pp62-3). This sets it apart from positivism,

with its allegiance to experimentation that removes alternative explanations. It does,


however, remain firm to the position that social science can be investigated in the

same way as natural science and there is an external reality (Bell and Bryman, 2007,

p 18).

Interpretivism (or social constructionism in Easterby-Smith et al, 2008) is founded on

knowledge generated through subjective meaning (Bell and Bryman, 2007, 19), based

within social realms, from an internal perspective (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2003, p.

336). The difference between a positivist and an interpretivist position is summarised

by Bryman and Bell (2007, pp17-18) as a focus on explanation (in positivism) in

contrast to understanding (in interpretivism). Interpretivism is therefore underpinned

by a belief that the study of people and workplaces requires an entirely different

approach to the study of natural sciences. The philosophical underpinning is drawn

from a range of intellectual thinking, including phenomenology and symbolic

interactionism (Bryman and Bell, 2007, pp18-21). There is no assumption as to any

pre-existing reality and a priority given to the use of language and the creation of

meaning. This results in research methodologies that incorporate meanings,

reflexivity, conversation, sense-making and understanding (Easterby-Smith et al,

2008, p63).

Worldviews or research philosophies can extend to beliefs about the nature of the

topic of study. For example, Grunig (2009, p.9) outlines two competing paradigms for

public relations that also apply to internal communication; “the symbolic, interpretive,

paradigm and the strategic management, behavioural, paradigm”. This divergence of

view on how to research public relations is summarised by Grunig as a difference

between “buffering” (the symbolic, interpretive approach – centred on messaging)

and “bridging” (the strategic management approach – centred on dialogue and

relationships). Creswell (2009, p. 5) argues that researchers should “make explicit

the larger philosophical ideas they espouse”. It could be argued that pragmatic

worldviews are most appropriate for research in the field of internal communication

assessment based, as it is, on real world practice. However, an

advocacy/participatory worldview is also valid, for example, investigating internal

communication from the perspective of the employee rather than the organisation,

which is currently the common level of analysis.

Research conducted as an audit is instigated primarily from a pragmatic worldview

philosophy. The approach is to ascertain how internal communication is practised in

a given organisation so that some form of useful problem identification is established


that can be addressed. In the course of conducting audits, the employee perspective

does also often emerge. For example, in an audit of a paper mill, one of the

conclusions that became established was that “Employees expressed dissatisfaction

with feedback about how they were judged”. Though Hargie and Tourish (2009, p.

18) do not make any explicit argument for empowerment of the employee, it is clear

that they do see internal communication audits as change oriented:

In the long term, business success is vital for individual as well as societal

well being. However, the evidence reviewed here suggests that, in order to

grasp this wider picture, the fundamental human needs that people bring into

the workplace with them must be addressed.

The consequences of actions are therefore given primacy over theory generation.

However, the challenge is to establish what communication audits are being used to

test. If no established theory exists to guide practice, what is the epistemological

knowledge that the audit is using as a framework?

3. Channels and content

Shortcomings in establishing theory in internal communication have often led to a

predominance of the assessment of channels used, or volume of information

generated (the what); essentially explanations rather than the content of the

communication itself, how well it is provided, or understanding. The well established

International Communication Association (ICA) survey is a comprehensive approach

made up of eight main sections. In an adapted version set out by Hargie and Tourish

(2009, pp.420-437) one of the sections explores content and another channels, four

are more generally about processes and volumes of information sent and received

and two can be tailored to specific organisational issues. The range of content topics

in section 2 is mainly job related; pay, performance, promotion, development, with

only one question in the set related to wider organisational goals. Respondents use a

five point Likert scale to rate the topics according to the how much information is

provided. The balance of job related questions and organisational related questions

is skewed towards the individual job level and this underplays the importance of

organisational identification. Furthermore, some important topics, such as job

security and the general support provided by the organisation, are omitted. In terms

of channels, section 4 in the audit provides a list of channels and asks the question,


“how much information are you receiving through these channels?” This may provide

a useful snapshot of channel use in a given organisation. However, it does not

explore what content is provided through specific channels and whether or not this is

appropriate from an employee perspective. The overriding focus on the volume of

information within the ICA also suggests that internal communication can be reduced

to a transmission process and this ignores the question of how well the information

was provided, including tone and clarity. It also fails to address questions of

credibility of the information provided and how far it led to two-way dialogue.

Another well established survey, the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

(CSQ) takes a different approach to the ICA and focuses on primary dimensions of

communication satisfaction that include: general organizational perspective,

organizational integration, personal feedback, relation with supervisor, horizontal-

informal communication, relation with subordinates, media quality, and

communication climate (Downs and Hazen, 1977). This also focuses mainly on

information specific to an individual but also includes some wider organisational

aspects, such as clarity of communication and openness to ideas (Pincus, 1986 p.

399). It is grounded more in general satisfaction than volume of information. The

findings of the studies that have used the CSQ indicate that the areas of greatest

employee satisfaction are the supervisory communication and subordinate

communication, while the area of least satisfaction tends to be the personal feedback

factor (Clampitt and Downs, 1993). The shortcomings of the CSQ are, according to

Clampitt (2009, p. 58), the omission of top management communication and

decision-making. Other surveys often explore preferences for channels and as White

et al (2010, p. 78) explain, e-mails are appropriate for quick notices and updates,

printed paper signifies importance, and web sites are archives for retrieval-as-needed

information. However, interpersonal, dialogic communication remains important to

employees at every level of the organization.

An analysis of recent assessments of internal communication is provided in table 1

below. The assessments include large scale consultancy based reports, such as

Towers Watson and IABC, and academic research. What emerges from this meta-

analysis is a disjointed picture of internal communication. Despite the existence of

well established tools, these are not always used. Consultants and academics use

different question sets and approach the topic from different perspectives. This

analysis reveals an overwhelming reliance on a positivist position, using

questionnaires to ascertain the state of internal communication. It is not clear what


validated approach to the subject these are based on, though there is a tendency

towards a paradigm that is focused on messaging rather than dialogue and

relationships (Grunig, 2009). On the other hand, some themes do emerge, such as

the reliance on newsletters and email and the decrease in print channels. In terms of

content, where this is assessed, there is a focus on job related topics and wider

organisational dimensions are often marginalised.

Source Content ChannelsTowers Watson (2010)

328 organizations that collectively represent 5 million employees in various regions around the world.

Understanding the business60% effectivenessOrganisational performance and financial objectives56% effectivenessRewards (health care, bonus, pension, pay) 45% effectivenessActions affecting customer45% effectivenessJob security24% provide no information on this topic

Social media – less than half of respondents are using this channelElectronic communication – substantial increase in useFace to face communication – significant increase in usePrint – increase in use in some areas but significant decline in other areas

IABC Research Foundationand Buck ConsultantsEmployee Engagement Survey (2010)

877 respondents from various regions around the world.

Formal list of values or description of the desired culture published – 74%Involve senior leadership in orientation programs to transmit vision, values, and culture – 54%Consistency between a manager’s behavior and the cultural values of the organization checked – 30%

Frequently used channels, ranked in order Emails (83%)Intranet (75%)Face-to-face meetings (54%)Website (47%)Print employee newsletters or newspapers (32%)Posters/flyers (28%)Town hall meetings (27%)Virtual meetings (21%)Videos (19%)Social media (12%)Business television (8%)Home mailings (5%)Podcasts (4%)

White et al (2010)

147 interviews conducted in a large,multicampus, geographically dispersed university in US.

Even when respondents said they had sufficient information to performtheir job and sufficient information about policies and goals of theorganization, they still wanted information about administrative decisions, budgets,personnel decisions, pending changes, goals, and future directions, etc.

Employees who were most satisfied with internal communication were thosewho received information from a variety of sources, including interpersonalchannels. Despite the convenience of e-mails, a high value was placed onface-to-face communication, even though many employees noted that meetings are time-consuming.


Melcrum Social Media Survey (2010) More than 2,600 internalcommunication professional respondents; 1,800 from organisations with more than500 employees.

Not assessed. Newsletters and emails68.8 per cent of leaders use online newsletters and companywide emails to get messages out to their staff.

Online video was chosen as the most popular "social media" tool with 52.6 per cent, with blogs (51.9 per cent – respondents were told they could tick all the tools that applied to their use of social media), instant messaging (47 per cent) and social networks, including Twitter, Facebook and Yammer, in fourth place with 37.6 per cent.

Marques (2010)

A qualitative study (entailing aphenomenological approach) with 20 subjects.

Criteria for successful communication: timely, clear, accurate, credible, pertinent, responsible, concise, professional, and sincere

Several participants listed the aspect ofexecution or delivery format of the message, stressing that communication should be delivered in a responsible format given its content. Not every message lends itself for email, but not every message requires face-to-face settings either.

CIPD (2009)

A representative sample of more than 3,000 people in employment in the UK.

Employees are most likely to say their managers rarely/never coach them on the job (44%); this is particularly the case with larger organisations. They are also more likely to say their managers rarely/never discuss their training and development needs (35%) nor provide them with feedback on their performance (26%).

More than one in five (26%) are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the opportunities that exist within their organisation to feed their views upwards.

Not assessed.

Al-Ghamdi et al (2007)

187 responses from employees in one company based in Riyadh and Jeddah.

Not specifically assessed. The eight highest rated methods used by employees to learn about theirfirm’s strategy were: (1) Plant Manager meetings(2) Group meetings conducted by employee’s immediate supervisor (3) Employees’ immediate supervisor(4) Information placed on bulletin boards, posters, and signs in the plant(5) E-mail(6) video(7) Tele/Video conference (8) The firm’s Division management in employee groups.


Truss (2006)

Stratified sample of 2000 employees in the UK.

Training and development32% rarely/never discussedPerformance30% rarely/never discussedVision48% say senior managers have a clear visionWell informed about organisation42% say they are not well informedVoice37% satisfied with opportunities for upward feedback

Not assessed.

Byrne and LeMay (2006)

598 fulltime employees from the US based offices of a high technologyoriented organization, using an adaptation of the International Communication Association (ICA) Communication AuditSurvey

Information

Satisfaction of company wide information – 3.2Satisfaction of business unit information-3.05Satisfaction of job information-3.37

Response scale of (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree

Lean/Rich media

Satisfaction with lean media – 3.43

Satisfaction with rich media – 3.76

Response scale of (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree

Akkirman and Harris (2005) Survey in a Turkish subsidiary of aninternational company based in Germany. Virtualoffice workers returned 46 surveys (a response rate of 70.7 per cent) and traditional office workers returned 22 surveys (a response rate of 62.8 per cent).

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ)

Communication satisfaction 3.66/3.24 Personal feedback 3.38/2.92Organizational integration 3.57/3.12 Relationship with supervisor 4.02/3.73 Communication climate 3.69/3.26 Horizontal communication 3.66/3.17

Results are shown for virtual workers/traditional workers

Not assessed.

Clampitt and Downs (2004) Around 1300 people from organisations in different countries.

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ)Supervisor communication – 34.18Subordinate communication – 33.43Horizontal communication – 31.81Organizational integration – 29.62Media quality – 29.17Communication climate – 26.56Corporate information – 26.35Personal feedback – 23.99

Scale of 0-50, (50 is max satisfaction)

Not assessed.


Quinn and Hargie (2004)

Interviews, questionnaires and critical incident analysis in a police force in Northern Ireland with131 respondents to the survey.

ICA questionnaireInformation - respondents thought they were receiving between “little” and “some” information, but wanted a “great” amount of information.

The greatest shortfalls related to:how decisions that affect my job are dealt with;self development opportunities;major management decisions;development and changes in policing; things that go wrong in the organisation.

ICA questionnaireInformation received through various channels - these results were the only ones that showed a statistically non-significant result, in that respondents did not wish to receive any more information through the grapevine and did not want to receive very much more via the media.

Table 1 Review of internal communication assessment

Hargie and Tourish (2009, pp. 235-6) highlight recurring themes in the

communication literature as:

The need for adequate information flow concerning key change issues

The central importance of supervisory communication as a preferred

communication source

The importance of inter-departmental communication in promoting enhanced

innovation

The role of participation as a means of enhancing corporate cohesion

The notion of communication as a foundation of teamwork and positive employee

attitudes, and thus an agency for enhancing performance

The need to maintain face-to-face communication as a primary method of

information transmission

The benefits obtained from conceptualising dissent as a source of useful

feedback, rather than simply as resistance to overcome.

They conclude (2009, p. 236) that there is a “…disabling gap between theory and

practice”. This is reinforced by the results in the meta-analysis in table 1. Change

issues are not specified in any of the assessments reviewed, the overwhelming use

of e-mail and newsletters dominates information transmission and the omission of

facets linked to participation and useful feedback is very apparent. The approaches

adopted to assessment also lack congruence with the themes outlined. However, the

themes themselves may not necessarily form a complete validated underlying theory

of internal communication. For example, they do not fully incorporate research

findings that link internal communication to employee engagement (Truss, 2006). So,


there are gaps at both the theoretical and practice levels. If an audit or assessment is

conducted to obtain an accurate, objective, picture of the state of internal

communication, then it is clearly important to understand what an ideal state is.

However, this assumes that an accurate, objective, state ever exists that can be

assessed. A more fluid and relativist or interpretivist position for internal

communication research is more appropriate for the field.

Downs and Adrian (2004, p. 51) stress the importance of understanding the task

processes necessary for directing, controlling, and coordinating work assignments

alongside any communication assessment. This highlights the importance of linking

communication theory to wider management theory and this too is missing from most

current assessment models. Downs and Adrian also argue (2004, p. 245) that

communication theories are still incomplete, and as there are many of them, “theory

needs to be used judiciously”. Furthermore, Downs and Adrian suggest that:

The state of our art is such that no umbrella theory of communication exists.

Therefore, each problem in the organisation may require auditors to use

different kinds of theories, always watching for their contradictions and

inconsistencies.

If it is too much to expect that in the complex social world of internal communication

scholars can establish an umbrella theory, there remains a requirement for emerging

public relations theories such as relationship theory, critical theory, the excellence

theory of public relations and rhetorical theory to be more explicitly acknowledged in

the assessment process. For example, these are not explained as underpinning

theories within the themes shown above. Many of these theories point to a new

direction in assessment based more on bridging than buffering. As the assessments

reviewed in table 1 indicate, the focus remains on the circulation of information; type

of information, timing, and load, flow; downward, upward and horizontal and use of

channels (2004, pp. 52-60). These are all indicative of a focus on buffering. In the

next section, medium theory is explored in more detail in relation to the continuing

interest in channels, as it too suggests that assessment needs to change to reflect

the growing emergence of the importance of social networks.


4. Medium theory and social networks

Much of the research and assessment of internal communication includes the use

and preferences of channels. According to Daft and Lengel (1986, p. 560) this is

linked to the concept of information richness and in order of decreasing richness,

media classifications are (1) face-to-face, (2) telephone, (3) personal documents

such as letters or memos, (4) impersonal written documents, and (5) numeric

documents. Rich media are personal and involve face-to-face contact between

managers, while media of lower richness are impersonal and rely on rules, forms,

procedures, or data bases. Downs and Adrian (2004, p. 57) argue that

communicators need to match communication that is high in ambiguity with rich

media and communication that is low in ambiguity with lean media. This basic

principle, in terms of matching content to media, is not an aspect of assessment that

is assessed in most current approaches.

It is worth noting that, according to some theorists, the channel itself conveys its own

message. Medium theory, developed first by Marshall McLuhan and then extended

by Donald Ellis (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008, p. 290), is based on the idea that the

media, irrelevant of the content, impacts individuals and society. As media change,

for example from print to television and more recently to internet, this affects the way

people think and relate to each other. Littlejohn and Foss (2008, p. 292) summarise

thinking on a first, broadcast, media age as a social interaction approach, based on

transmission of information and the second media age as a social integration

approach which is more interactive and personalized. This analysis can be likened to

Grunig’s (2009) differentiation between buffering and bridging. In the second age

there is less emphasis on the media and information per se and more on the way that

it creates communities. However, Poster (1995, p. 22) argues that the first age may

not have been an age at all, “Until now the broadcast model has not been a first age

but has been naturalized as the only possible way of having media – few producers,

many consumers”. Relating this to internal communication today, it could be argued

that its first real age has yet to arrive, with practice focused as it is on a model of

transmission of messages from senior management (the few) using email and

newsletters (broadcast channels) to employees (the many).


The dawning of a new age of social integration in internal communication raises new

questions about theory and assessment. According to Poster (1995, p. 28) it

amounts to “users having decentralized, distributed, direct control over when, what,

why, and with whom they exchange information”. This leads to critical thinking,

activism, democracy, and quality. Poster’s approach is related to external

communication and the question is how far it applies to the world of internal

communication. Bennett et al (2010) claim that social networking sites provide

opportunities for both formal and informal interaction and collaboration with fellow

employees and clients/customers which aids knowledge transfer and communication.

This, in turn, leads to a shift in culture from “information gathering” to “information

participation”. Lange et al (2008, pp4-5) argue that the benefits of social networking

can be classified into three broad categories:

(1) Community. Defined as the use of social networking tools and capabilities to

interact with people who share your interests and passions.

(2) Collaboration. Defined as the use of social networking tools and capabilities to

connect people, expertise and resources in search of solutions that cannot be

created with any one of those ingredients alone.

(3) Contribution. Defined as the use of social networking tools and capabilities to

make it easier for customers or citizens to contribute their ideas, expertise,

concerns and preferences in the process of designing new products, services or

policies.

Cook (2008, p. 37) outlines four similar components in a classification of enterprise

2.0; communication, cooperation, collaboration, and connection. Fraser and Dutta

(2010) highlight examples of corporations which have started to adopt social

networking sites as a business tool such as General Motors which uses an internal

blog, and FastLane, which uses a corporate “focus group” that attracts around 5,000

daily visits. The approach to assessment of internal social media has to date focused

on basic techniques, using website data and analysis or intranet traffic figures. A

recent Melcrum survey (2010) involving more than 2,600 internal communication

professionals found that:


Internal communication teams enjoy sticking to the basics with 61.6 per cent

suggesting they measure the success of social media initiatives by using

website data and analysis or intranet traffic figures.

The survey also reinforced assessment from other research regarding the use of

newsletters and emails; 68.8 per cent of leaders were found to be using online

newsletters and companywide emails to get messages out to their staff. The use of

social media technologies becomes increasingly important as organisations offer

different working styles, such as teleworking, hot-desking, and virtual offices.

Interestingly, despite concerns that virtual working provides a challenge for internal

communicators, research conducted by Akkirman and Harris (2005) found no

evidence to support the idea that a virtual workplace would have a categorically

negative impact on organizational communication. In fact, they found the opposite,

virtual office workers experienced higher levels of communication satisfaction than

office workers on all measured factors.

Currently, internal communication theory and assessment has not caught up with the

impact of social networks and media within organizations. This is an example of what

Poster (1995, p. 74) refers to as contingency in communication theory,

“Communication theory begins with a recognition of necessary self-reflexivity, of the

dependence of knowledge on its context”. He goes on to argue that “The first

principle of communication theory in the age of electronic technology, then, is that

there is no first principle, only a recognition of an outside of theory, an other to

theory, a world that motivates theory”. Poster warns against the temptation, at an

epistemological level, to try to secure a firm knowledge of communication theory.

This is a steer towards research and assessment of internal communication that is

more grounded in a relativist or interpretivist worldview, based on understanding

more than explaining or seeking to find absolute principles.


5. Conclusion

This paper argues that internal communication theory and assessment are

intrinsically linked and that the field requires a stronger appreciation of

epistemological approaches to research that should be clearer in assessment

models. The techniques used in the majority of the assessments reviewed for this

paper are questionnaires, many based on scales that were developed in the 1970s.

The advantage of using such well developed tools is the potential benchmarking of

data on a significant scale. The disadvantages are that the tools do not reflect a

broad, current, range of theories. They also reflect a narrow, positivist, worldview

approach to the complex field of human communication and do not take account of

the changing world of work that is resulting from the introduction of social media

technologies.

Internal communication theory, or, more accurately, theories, are multidimensional

and have wider connections to fields such as employee engagement and effective

management. Establishing a single theory is therefore unlikely. Establishing an

essential “truth” for practice in any given organisation through assessment is also

unrealistic. It is more meaningful to work towards assessment models that reflect a

combination of buffering and bridging approaches to internal communication.

Buffering should not be ignored or downplayed as it is an effective way of keeping

employees informed. However, it is over represented in assessment and future

approaches need to include assessment based more on bridging to reflect current

theory and social networking in the workplace.


List of references


Documents

Value of Communication - Approaches to Assessment of Employee Valuations of IC