Vp

KL

a

ARR1A

KIEOeCcMI

1

(HilApspTe

csIe

0d

Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 294– 302

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

aluing internal communication; management and employeeerspectives

evin Ruck ∗, Mary Welchancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire, UK

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 30 August 2011eceived in revised form4 December 2011ccepted 16 December 2011

eywords:nternal communication assessmentmployee communication needsrganisational identification, employeengagementonceptual model for internalommunicationedium theory

nternal social media

a b s t r a c t

Effective internal communication is a prerequisite for organisational success. Organisa-tions need to evaluate and improve communication especially in increasingly difficulteconomic pressures. Assessment instruments enable organisations to monitor communica-tion effectiveness. This review of academic and consultancy studies found over reliance onmeasuring satisfaction with the communication process. The analysis found management-centric rather than employee-centric approaches to assessment. This indicates a need todevelop new approaches to assessing internal communication. A conceptual model is pro-posed here to encourage focus on employee communication needs in terms of contentas well as channel. Future approaches to assessment should draw on a wider theoreticaland conceptual framework. Assessment instruments need to reflect advances in practice.They need to assess the value of internal communication to employees as well as theirorganisations.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

The role of communication is an important factor in the understanding of the value of intangible organisational assetsRitter, 2003, p. 50). Communication within organisations is linked to higher levels of performance and service (Tourish &argie, 2009, pp. 10–15) generating communication capital (Malmelin, 2007, p. 298) and social capital (Lee, 2009), grounded

n organisational relationships. It is important for managers to be able to assess internal communication. Many well estab-ished tools developed in the 1970s are still used, such as the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ), the ICAudit, the Organisational Communication Development audit and the Organisational Communication scale (Clampitt, 2009,p. 58–61). Managers have long recognised the importance of internal communication. However, it is seen from the per-pective of management rather than the employee. As Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 187) argue, “research into employeereferences for channel and content of internal corporate communication is required to ensure it meets employees’ needs”.his is echoed by Uusi-Rauva and Nurkka (2010, p. 303) who assert that “little research has focused on finding out whatmployees consider important in the internal “expert communication process””.

This paper firstly reviews concepts related to employee communication needs, internal communication processes andontent, and the contribution to of these to employee engagement. It then reviews 12 recent academic and consultancy

tudies representing 10,928 respondents. It argues that approaches to assessment are focused on process, rather than content.t suggests that a broader theoretical base is required to better inform assessment and proposes a new conceptual model formployee questions to be addressed through line manager and internal corporate communication.

∗ Corresponding author at: The PR Academy, Maidstone Studios, Vinters Park, Maidstone, Kent ME14 5NZ, UK. Tel.: +44 01622684766.E-mail address: kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk (K. Ruck).

363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.016

K. Ruck, M. Welch / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 294– 302 295

Table 1TowersWatson 2009/2010 communication ROI study report (p. 10).

Messages delivered centrally Messages delivered locally

Explaining and promoting new programs and policies Helping employees understand the business

Educating employees about organisational culture and values Telling employees how their actions affect the customerProviding information on organisational performance and financial objectives Integrating new employees into the organisationProviding individuals with information about the true value of their total compensation package

2. Conceptual review

2.1. Employee communication needs

Minimal attention has been given to what employees would like their organisation to communicate. As Chen, Silverthorne,and Hung (2006, p. 242) argue, “A review of the research on organisational processes concluded that member satisfactionwith organisational communication practices has been ignored”. An exception to this is Goldhaber, Porter, Yates, and Lesniak(1978, p. 82) who found that an employee’s primary needs include, first, more information about personal, job-relatedmatters, and then, information about organisational decision making and a greater opportunity to voice complaints andevaluate superiors. According to the consultancy, TowersWatson (2010, p. x), “Most firms do well at communicating aboutthe business; however. . .less than half of firms report they are effective at communicating to employees regarding howtheir actions affect the customer or increase productivity”. They report that internal communication messages are deliveredeither centrally or locally. This categorisation reflects Welch and Jackson’s (2007) internal corporate communication andline-management dimensions. The content differs as shown in Table 1.

There is no evidence in the report to suggest that these topics are the most important ones that employees expectmanagers to discuss. Furthermore, the notion that firms do well at communicating about the business is challenged by Trusset al. (2006, pp. 13–14) who found that 25 per cent of employees say that their manager rarely or never makes them feeltheir work counts. And only around half of all employees say that their manager usually or always “consults me on mattersof importance” or “keeps me in touch with what is going on”. In this study, 42 per cent of employees say that they are notkept very well informed about what is going on in their organisation (Truss et al., 2006, p. 17).

An effective communication climate is, according to Robertson (2005), based on the following topics; job, personal,operational and strategic issues. Many of these are reflected in an audit of communication in a healthcare organisation,where the following top six topics were cited for “information needed” (Hargie & Tourish, 2009a, 2009b, p. 252).

How problems that I report in my job are dealt with (3.8)How my job contributes to the organisation (3.6)How decisions that affect my job are reached (3.6)Things that go wrong in my organisation (3.5)Staff development opportunities (3.5)My performance in my job (3.5)Scale: 1 = very little: 2 = little: 3 = some: 4 = great: 5 = very great

These results signify the importance of upward feedback and managers “closing the loop” of concerns raised. Theyhighlight “things that go wrong” which does not sit comfortably with a journalistic, “tell” or “sell” approach that could beperceived as organisational propaganda.

2.2. Emphasis on process

The focus of internal communication audits is on process, not content or employee needs that lead to organisational iden-tification and engagement. Tourish and Hargie (2009, p. 31) state that audits typically focus on who is communicating withwhom, the issues that receive attention, the volume of information sent and received, levels of trust and the quality of work-ing relationships. Valuable as these perspectives are, this highlights the general starting point for internal communicationaudits and research; the managerial perspective on process rather than individual employee expectations of content.

2.3. Identification and contribution to engagement

Sluss, Klimchak, and Holmes (2008, p. 457) point out that although a myriad of potential exchange relationships existwithin and between organisations, all employees have two seemingly preeminent relationships at work; one with the imme-

diate supervisor, and one with the organisation. Organisational identification, based on social identity theory, is the degreeof oneness with the organisation and has been found to be associated with job satisfaction, job involvement, turnoverintentions, and in role and extra-role performance. Leiter and Bakker (2010, p. 2) suggest that “Employees’ responses toorganisational policies, practices and structures affect their potential to experience engagement”. This is illustrated in a

2

sooroad1pscejjr

(((

2

rCtHea2p

awt

3

3

AHgiihts

vmootpt

96 K. Ruck, M. Welch / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 294– 302

ocial identity theory approach to organisational identification adopted by Millward and Postmes (2010, p. 335) in a studyf business managers in the UK. They reported that “The fact that identification with the superordinate grouping of “therganisation” was particularly relevant to performance is important for theoretical, empirical and pragmatic reasons”. Thiseinforces research by Wieseke, Ahearne, Lam, and Dick (2009) that found the higher the level of organisational identityf sales managers the greater the sales quota achievement. A lack of organisational identification has, according to Knightnd Haslam (2010, p. 721) been associated with increased stress and burnout, withdrawal, and sickness. These are powerfulrivers for an organisation’s investment in what Welch and Jackson term “Internal Corporate Communication” (2007, p.86) defined as “communication between an organisation’s strategic managers and its internal stakeholders, designed toromote commitment to the organisation, a sense of belonging to it, awareness of its changing environment and under-tanding of its evolving aims”. Internal communication theory has to extend its scope to include linkages between internalorporate communication and organisational engagement, described by Welch (2011) as a psychological state that linksmployees to their organisation. Organisational engagement can be differentiated from job engagement which is aligned toob involvement, described by Fleck and Inceoghu (2010, p. 37) as an employees’ psychological identification with his/herob. Organisational engagement is influenced by organisation-level internal communication. As Truss et al. (2006, p. 45)eport, the three most important factors for employee engagement are:

1) having opportunities to feed your views upwards2) feeling well informed about what is happening in the organisation, and3) thinking that your manager is committed to your organisation.

.4. Content and organisational identification

Organisational-level communication is grounded in an organisation’s vision and values (D‘Aprix, 2006). However, corpo-ate image and identity is not prioritised in the internal communication literature as it is posited as external communication.artwright and Holmes (2006, p. 204) suggest that corporate image “can matter a great deal to an employee as it representsheir assessment of what characteristics others are likely to ascribe to them because they work for a particular organisation”.oltzhausen and Fourie (2009, p. 340) argue that “the non-visual elements of the corporate identity impact on employer-mployee relationships and thus need special attention when managing employer–employee relationships”. Employees arelso interested in knowing about organisational strategy. However, it is how it is discussed that is critical. Daymon (1993, p.47) suggests that the reasons why employees give up on the communication process is the failure to connect strategy toeople:

I think people didn’t go . . . because the first one that [the chief executive] held was all financial. . . . It was all money,money, money, and it meant very little to a lot of people. He wasn’t talking about realities. He was talking about fiscalpolicies.. . .

Sluss et al. (2008, p. 458) suggest that, in terms of values, perceived organisational support is a key factor. This is defineds the subordinate’s perception of the extent that “their work organisation values their contribution and cares about theirell-being”. It is especially important as many more people today “are seeking a greater sense of meaning and purpose in

heir extending working lives” (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006, p. 200).

. Review of 12 assessment studies

.1. Established approaches

This section explores a range of internal communication assessment studies. Firstly, the International Communicationssociation (ICA) survey is a comprehensive approach made up of eight main sections. In an adapted version set out byargie and Tourish (2009a, 2009b, pp. 420–437) one of the sections explores content and another channels, four are moreenerally about processes and volumes of information sent and received and two can be tailored to specific organisationalssues. The range of content topics is mainly job related; pay, performance, promotion, development, with only one questionn the set related to wider organisational goals. Respondents use a five point Likert scale to rate the topics according to theow much information is provided. The balance of job related questions and organisational related questions is skewedowards the individual job level and this underplays the importance of organisational identification. In the full ICA survey,ections on organisational communication relationships and organisational outcomes are available.

These are dominated by questions related to supervisors and some important topics, such as job security and employeeoice, are omitted. The Hargie and Tourish version of the audit provides a list of channels and asks the question, “howuch information are you receiving through these channels?” This provides a useful snapshot of channel use in a given

rganisation. It does not explore whether content provided is relevant or appropriate from an employee perspective. The

verriding focus on the volume of information within the ICA suggests that internal communication can be reduced to aransmission process. It emphasises timeliness of information. However, it is less focused on how well the information wasrovided, including the tone, clarity and appropriateness of the medium used. It does not address questions of credibility ofhe information provided and how far it led to two-way dialogue.

K. Ruck, M. Welch / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 294– 302 297

The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) takes a different approach to the ICA and concentrates on primarydimensions of communication satisfaction that include: general organisational perspective, organisational integration, per-sonal feedback, relation with supervisor, horizontal-informal communication, relation with subordinates, media quality,and communication climate (Downs & Hazen, 1977). This is predominantly information specific to an individual and the job,linked to productivity, with some wider organisational aspects included, such as clarity of communication and openness toideas (Pincus, 1986, p. 399). It is grounded in general satisfaction rather than volume of information. Findings of CSQ indicatethat the areas of greatest employee satisfaction are supervisory communication and subordinate communication and thearea of least satisfaction is personal feedback factor (Clampitt & Downs, 1993). The CSQ has been found to have correlationswith job satisfaction (Rubin et al., 1994). However, it has a number of shortcomings such as the omission of top managementcommunication and decision-making (Clampitt, 2009, p. 58) and of new communication media (Zwijze-Koning & de Jong,2007, p. 274).

Both the ICA and the CSQ audits have credible heritages with strong developmental processes, high reliability and validityand enable benchmarking. They are adaptable for different organisations, although the large scale of the ICA survey instru-ment makes it impractical to use. However, they also rely heavily on a highly quantitative approach and Zwijze-Koning andde Jong (2007, p. 280) argue that a survey such as CSQ should be complemented with other qualitative audit instruments.

3.2. Twelve recent studies

An analysis of 12 recent (2004–2010) academic and consultancy studies of internal communication is provided in Table 2below.

What emerges from this analysis is a predominance of the assessment of processes, channels, and volume of communica-tion, not employee needs for content. Despite the existence of well established tools, these are not always used. Consultantsand academics use different question sets and approach the topic from different perspectives. There is a reliance on ques-tionnaires and in these examples a quantitative approach is rarely complemented with a qualitative approach. There is atendency towards concepts that are focused on messaging rather than dialogue, relationships and organisational engage-ment. Some clear themes do emerge, such as the reliance on newsletters and the decrease in print channels. Where contentis assessed, there is a focus on job related topics and wider organisational dimensions are marginalised.

A summary of the key findings from the data is summarised in Table 3.This analysis suggests that satisfaction with organisational information ranges from 53% to 64%. As a basic employee

requirement, this indicates there is still much to be done for employees to feel that they are well informed. In terms ofunderstanding the business strategy, values and goals, 60% of employees understand where the organisation is headed,though this is undermined by senior manager clarity (48%) and minimal senior management involvement in telling thestory (54%). Most concerning is the very low (30%) level of consistency in behaviour to match values. At an individuallevel, 30% of employees do not have any discussion about performance at all, job information satisfaction is around 67%,and personal feedback satisfaction ranges from 48% to 58%. Satisfaction with opportunities for upward feedback varies,nevertheless it is clear that at best there is still a large number of employees who are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Takingthe three key drivers for employee engagement highlighted earlier; feeling well informed, line manager commitment, andemployee voice, it is not surprising that given the data summarised here that engagement levels are often consistently low,around 35%, according to Truss et al. (2006, p. xi). It is clear that electronic communication is replacing print, though use ofsocial media is still at an embryonic stage with less than half of organisations using it. Finally, questions about satisfactionwith content are rarely asked and employees do, naturally, expect channels to be used appropriately.

4. Discussion

4.1. Assessment needs a broader theoretical base

The analysis of studies in Tables 2 and 3 indicates a focus on process rather than content. A fresh approach is outlined in thefollowing sections building on contemporary thinking in internal communication theory. Hargie and Tourish (2009a, 2009b,pp. 235–236) argue that recurring themes in the communication literature include; adequate information flow concerningkey change issues, supervisory communication as a preferred communication source, communication as a foundation ofteamwork and positive employee attitudes, face-to-face communication as a primary method of information transmission,and the benefits obtained from conceptualising dissent as a source of useful feedback. They conclude (2009a, 2009b, p. 236)that there is a “. . .disabling gap between theory and practice”. This is reinforced by the analysis of data in Table 2. Changeissues are not specified in any of the assessments reviewed, the overwhelming use of and newsletters dominates practice,and the omission of assessment of useful feedback is very apparent. However, the themes stated do not, in themselves, forma complete theory of internal communication. They do not incorporate research findings that link internal communication to

organisational engagement and concepts related to organisational engagement are not evident in the assessments analysed.So, there are gaps at both 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 important to understand what an ideal state is. Downs and Adrian confirm (2004, p. 245) that communication

298 K. Ruck, M. Welch / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 294– 302

Table 2Review of studies of internal communication and engagement assessment.

Study Content (findings) Channels (findings)

Towers Watson Capitalizing on EffectiveCommunication. 2009/2010Communication ROI Study Report (2010)328 employers in 22 different industries invarious regions around the world (43% inUS)

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 ofrespondents are using this channelElectronic communication – substantialincrease in useFace to face communication – significantincrease in usePrint – increase in use in some areas butsignificant decline in other areas

Melcrum Social Media Survey (2010)More than 2600 internal communicationprofessional respondents; 1800 fromorganisations with more than 500employees

Not assessed Newsletters and emails68.8 per cent of leaders use onlinenewsletters and companywide emails toget messages out to their staff.Online video was rated as the mostpopular “social media” tool (52.6%). Othershighlighted were: blogs (51.9%) instantmessaging (47%) and social networks,including Twitter, Facebook and Yammer(37.6%)

White et al. (2010)Purposive sample drawn from allemployment classifications resulting in147 interviews conducted in a large,multicampus, university in US

Information wantedAdministrative decisions, budgets, personnel decisions,pending changes, goals, and future directions

Preferred channelHigh value was placed on face-to-facecommunication, even though manyemployees noted that meetings aretime-consuming

Marques (2010)A qualitative study involving 20 subjects inUS; all members of the workforce with atleast five years of work experience inlower and middle management positions

Criteria for successful communicationTimely, clear, accurate, credible, pertinent, responsible,concise, professional, and sincere

Right channel for contentCommunication should be delivered in aresponsible format given its content. Notevery message lends itself for email, butnot every message requires face-to-facesettings either

Al-Ghamdi, Roy, and Ahmed (2007)A representative sample of more than 3000employees in the UK

Performance related communication and upwardfeedbackEmployees are most likely to say their managersrarely/never coach them on the job (44%), rarely/neverdiscuss their training and development needs (35%)nor provide them with feedback on their performance(26%)More than one in five (26%) are either dissatisfied orvery dissatisfied with the opportunities that existwithin their organisation to feed their views upwards

Not assessed

Al-Ghamdi et al. (2007)187 responses fromemployees in one company based inRiyadh and Jeddah

Not specifically assessed Preferred channel about strategy (topfive in order of preference)(1) Plant Manager meetings(2) Group meetings conducted byemployee’s immediate supervisor(3) Employees’ immediate supervisor(4) Information placed on bulletin boards,posters, and signs in the plant(5) E-mail

Truss et al. (2006)Stratified sample of 2000 employees in theUK

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 basedoffices of a high technology orientedorganisation, using an adaptation of theInternational Communication Association(ICA) Communication AuditSurvey

InformationSatisfaction with company wide information 3.2Satisfaction with business unit information3.05Satisfaction with job information3.37Response scale of (1) strongly disagree to (5) stronglyagree

Lean/rich mediaSatisfaction with lean media 3.43Satisfaction with rich media 3.76Response scale of (1) strongly disagree to(5) strongly agree

K. Ruck, M. Welch / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 294– 302 299

Table 2 (Continued)

Study Content (findings) Channels (findings)

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

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ)Communication satisfaction 3.66/3.24Personal feedback 3.38/2.92Organisational integration 3.57/3.12Relationship with supervisor 4.02/3.73Communication climate 3.69/3.26Horizontal communication 3.66/3.17Results are shown for virtual workers/traditionalworkers

Not assessed

Clampitt and Downs (2004)Around 1300 employees fromorganisations in different countries, usingthe Communication SatisfactionQuestionnaire (CSQ)

Supervisor communication – 34.18Subordinate communication – 33.43Horizontal communication – 31.81Organisational integration – 29.62Media quality – 29.17Communication climate – 26.56Corporate information – 26.35Personal feedback – 23.99Scale of 0–50, (50 is max satisfaction)

Not assessed

Quinn and Hargie (2004)Interviews, questionnaires and criticalincident analysis in a police force inNorthern Ireland with131 respondents tothe International CommunicationAssociation (ICA) survey

ICA questionnaireRespondents thought they were receiving between“little” and “some” information. The greatest shortfallsrelated to: how decisions that affect my job are dealtwith; self development opportunities; majormanagement decisions; development and changes inpolicing; things that go wrong in the organisation

ICA questionnaireRespondents did not wish to receive anymore information through the grapevineand did not want to receive very muchmore via the media

Table 3Summary of key findings from internal communication and engagement assessment.

Satisfaction/channel use Findings

Information 74% values published (IABC, 2010)42% not well informed (Truss et al., 2006)Satisfaction of company wide information is 3.2 out of 5 (Byrne & LeMay, 2006)Communication satisfaction 3.66/3.24, communication climate 3.69/3.26 (outof 5, virtual worker/traditional worker, Akkirman)Media quality 29.17, communication climate 26.56, corporate information26.35 (out of 50, Clampitt & Downs)Employees want information about administrative decisions, budgets,personnel decisions, pending changes, goals, and future directions, etc. (Whiteet al., 2010)

Understanding and living the business strategy, values,goals

60% understanding (TowersWatson, 2010)

54% senior manager involvement in communication, 30% consistency inbehaviour (IABC, 2010)48% senior managers have a clear vision (Truss et al., 2006)

Satisfaction with upward feedback 26% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (CIPD, 2009)37% satisfied (Truss et al., 2006)

Satisfaction with feedback on performance 30% performance not discussed (Truss et al., 2006)44% of managers rarely/never coach employees (CIPD, 2009)Satisfaction of job information 3.37 (out of 5, Byrne & LeMay, 2006)Personal feedback 3.38/2.92 (out of 5, virtual worker/traditional worker)(Akkirman)Personal feedback 23.99 (out of 50, Clampitt & Downs)

Content Timely, clear, accurate, credible, pertinent, responsible, concise, professional,and sincere, but communication should be delivered in a responsible formatgiven its content (Marques, 2010)Main shortfalls are: self development opportunities; major managementdecisions; development and changes in policing; things that go wrong in theorganisation (Quinn & Hargie, 2004)

Channels, new and social media Lean media; 3.43 out of 5, rich media; 3.76 (out of 5, Quinn & Hargie, 2004)83%, intranet 75%, social media 12% (IABC, 2010)Email/online news 68.8%, online video most popular social media tool(Melcrum, 2010)General increase in use of electronic channels, though less than 50% usingsocial media tools (TowersWatson, 2010)

300 K. Ruck, M. Welch / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 294– 302

tA

m

ttdtrd

Aaphfiiraamcfioaaf

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of employee questions to be addressed through line manager and corporate internal communication.

heories are still incomplete, and as there are many of them, “theory needs to be used judiciously”. Furthermore, Downs anddrian suggest that:

The state of our art is such that no umbrella theory of communication exists. Therefore, each problem in the organisationay require auditors to use different kinds of theories, always watching for their contradictions and inconsistencies.If auditors need to call upon a range of theory, then wider public relations theories such as critical theory, the excellence

heory of public relations and rhetorical theory (Toth, 2009) could be incorporated much more into internal communicationheory. These approaches are under-explored and could be a rich vein of research. Many of these theories point to a newirection in assessment based more on bridging than buffering, where bridging is about relationships with stakeholders, ratherhan a set of messaging activities designed to buffer the organisation from them (Grunig, 2009, p. 9). As the assessmentseviewed in Table 2 indicate, the focus remains on the circulation of information; type of information, timing, and load, flow;ownward, upward and horizontal and use of channels. These are all indicative of a focus on buffering.

Much of the current research and assessment of internal communication includes the use and preferences of channels.ccording to Daft and Lengel (1986, p. 560) this is linked to the concept of information richness. Rich media are personalnd involve face-to-face contact between managers, while media of lower richness are impersonal and rely on rules, forms,rocedures, or data bases. Downs and Adrian (2004, p. 57) argue that communicators need to match communication that isigh in ambiguity with rich media and communication that is low in ambiguity with lean media. Medium theory, developedrst by Marshall McLuhan and then extended by Donald Ellis (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p. 290) argues that that the media,

rrelevant of the content, impacts individuals and society. As media change, for example from print to television and moreecently to internet, this affects the way people think and relate to each other. Littlejohn and Foss (2008, p. 292) conceptualise

first, broadcast, media age as a social interaction approach, based on transmission of information and the second media ages a social integration approach which is more interactive and personalized. In the second age there is less emphasis on theedia and information per se and more on the way that it creates communities. Bennett, Owers, Pitt, and Tucker (2010)

laim that social networking sites provide opportunities for both formal and informal interaction and collaboration withellow employees and clients/customers which aids knowledge transfer and communication. This, in turn, leads to a shiftn culture from “information gathering” to “information participation”. Fraser and Dutta (2008, p. 19) highlight examplesf corporations that have started to adopt social networking sites as a business tool such as General Motors which uses

n internal blog and FastLane, which uses a corporate “focus group” that attracts around 5000 daily visits. Currently, thepproach to assessment of internal social media is focused on basic techniques. Research conducted by Melcrum (2010)ound that 61.6 per cent measure the success of social media initiatives by using website data and analysis or intranet traffic

K. Ruck, M. Welch / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 294– 302 301

figures. Internal communication theory and assessment has not caught up with the impact of social networks and mediawithin organisations.

4.2. An updated conceptual model

This paper has explored approaches to assessing internal communication and the associated links to internal communi-cation theory. As theory is incomplete, it is not possible to establish a definitive conceptual model of internal communicationthat can be used to guide assessment. However, it is possible to outline a new model of employee questions to be addressedthrough line manager and corporate internal communication (Fig. 1). The model is informed by D’Aprix’s (2006, p. 238) modelthat identifies the following: job responsibilities, performance feedback, individual needs, department objectives/results,vision, mission and strategy, and engagement. It conceptualises engagement as an outcome of internal communication andspecifies employee voice and identification as critical components for engagement. It also provides a balance between inter-nal communication at the job level of engagement and internal communication at the organisational level of engagement.This reflects individual (job) and social (organisational identification) communication needs of employees, fulfilling cog-nitive and social psychological aspects of communication. As a framework for assessment, it includes more emphasis ondrivers for organisational engagement that are missing or marginalised in existing assessment instruments.

The model incorporates the importance of employee voice, based on being well informed together with concepts oforganisational support and identification. It is grounded in the argument that work and organisational employee engagementis influenced by internal corporate communication and effective line, peer, and team management communication. Themodel suggests linkages between dimensions where these are likely to be strongest, for example role and performance.Further research is required to test possible connections. It is conceptually possible that some aspects, such as role, aremore hygiene factors and others, such as identification are more powerful drivers of engagement. This conceptual modelis a higher level model only that requires a more detailed and layered approach to practical application of new assessmentinstruments. This extends to assessing the use of the right medium for the message and incorporation of the full range ofemployee communication needs as identified in the studies reviewed in this paper.

5. Conclusion

Internal communication assessment is currently focused on channels used, or volume of information generated (thewhat); essentially process explanations rather than the content of the communication itself, how well it is provided, orunderstanding. The studies reviewed in this paper found levels of internal communication satisfaction in the 50 to mid 60percentage range and understanding of organisational strategy at around 60 per cent. Communication is undermined by alack of senior manager clarity and commitment to values. Opportunities for employee voice can be significantly improved. Achanging communication environment calls for new approaches to assessment with an emphasis on communities, contentand dialogue rather than volume and channels. Expanding the theoretical base for internal communication could generatenew approaches to practice and assessment. For example, assessment of internal communication could take more account ofthe impact of social media within a wider context of medium theory. A new conceptual model of employee communicationis posited here as a framework for fresh approaches to internal communication assessment. It encourages a stronger balancebetween communication related to an individual’s role and wider internal corporate communication. It incorporates theimportance of employee voice, based on being well informed, organisational support and identification. The frameworkcould encourage development of assessment instruments that include emphasis on content and employee needs. Futureresearch could draw on concepts and theories discussed in this paper to assess the value of internal corporate communicationto employees and their organisations.

References

Akkirman, A., & Harris, D. (2005). Organisational communication satisfaction in the virtual workplace. Journal of Management Development, 24(5), 397–409.Al-Ghamdi, S., Roy, M., & Ahmed, Z. (2007). How employees learn about corporate strategy: An empirical analysis of a Saudi manufacturing company. Cross

Cultural Management: An International Journal, 14(4), 273–285.Bennett, J., Owers, M., Pitt, M., & Tucker, M. (2010). Workplace impact of social networking. Property Management, 28(3), 138–148.Byrne, Z., & LeMay, E. (2006). Different media for organisational communication: Perceptions of quality and satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology,

21(2), 149–173.Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource

Management Review, 16(2), 199–208.Chen, J., Silverthorne, C., & Hung, J. (2006). Organisation communication, job stress, organisational commitment, and job performance of accounting

professionals in Taiwan and America. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 27(4), 242–249.CIPD. (2009). Employee attitudes and the recession. London: CIPD.Clampitt, P., & Downs, C. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business

Communication, 30(1), 5.Clampitt, P. G. (2009). The questionnaire approach. In O. Hargie, & D. Tourish (Eds.), Auditing organisational communication. London: Routledge.

Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. (2004). Downs–Hazen communication satisfaction questionnaire. In C. Downs, & A. Adrian (Eds.), Assessing organisational

communication. The Guilford Press: London.D‘Aprix, R. (2006). Throwing rocks at the corporate rhinocerous, the challenges of employee engagement. In T. L. E. Gillis (Ed.), The IABC handbook of

organisational communication. John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco.Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organisational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 554–571.

3

D

DDF

F

GGH

HH

IK

LL

LM

M

MM

PQR

RRS

T

T

TT

U

W

W

W

WZ

02 K. Ruck, M. Welch / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 294– 302

aymon, C. (1993). On considering the meaning of managed communication: Or why employees resist ‘excellent’communication. Journal of CommunicationManagement, 4(3), 240–252.

owns, C. W., & Adrian, A. D. (2004). Assessing Organizational Communication, Strategic Communication Audits. New York: The Guilford Press.owns, C., & Hazen, M. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14(3), 63.leck, S., & Inceoghu, I. (2010). A comprehensive framework for understanding and predicting engagement. In S. A. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee

engagement, perspectives, issues, research and practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.raser, M., & Dutta, S. (2008). Throwing sheep in the boardroom: How online social networking will transform your life, work and world. Chichester: Wiley &

Sons.oldhaber, G., Porter, D., Yates, M., & Lesniak, R. (1978). Organisational communication: 1978. Human Communication Research, 5(1), 76–96.runig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism, 62(2).argie, O., & Tourish, D. (2009). Charting communication performance in a healthcare organisation. In O. Hargie, & D. Tourish (Eds.), Auditing organisational

communication. London: Routledge.argie, O., & Tourish, D. (Eds.). (2009). Auditing organisational communication. London: Routledge.oltzhausen, L., & Fourie, L. (2009). Employees’ perceptions of company values and objectives and employer–employee relationships: A theoretical model.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(3), 333–344.ABC. (2010). IABC research foundation and buck consultants employee engagement survey, June 2010 survey results.night, C., & Haslam, S. (2010). Your place or mine? Organisational identification and comfort as mediators of relationships between the managerial control

of workspace and employees’ satisfaction and well-being. British Journal of Management, 21, 717–735.ee, R. (2009). Social capital and business and management: Setting a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(3), 247–273.eiter, M. P., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work engagement: Introduction. In A. B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement, a handbook of essential theory

and research. Psychology Press: Hove and New York.ittlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of human communication (9th ed.). Belmont: Thomson Higher Education.almelin, N. (2007). Communication capital: Modelling corporate communications as an organisational asset. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 12(3), 298–310.arques, J. (2010). Enhancing the quality of organisational communication: A presentation of reflection-based criteria. Journal of Communication Manage-

ment, 14(1), 47–58.elcrum. (2010). Melcrum social media survey 2010. London: Melcrum.illward, L., & Postmes, T. (2010). Who we are affects how we do: The financial benefits of organisational identification. British Journal of Management, 21,

327–339.incus, J. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human Communication Research, 12(3), 395–419.uinn, D., & Hargie, O. (2004). Internal communication audits: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9(2), 146–158.itter, M. (2003). The use of balanced scorecards in the strategic management of corporate communication. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 8(1), 44–59.obertson, E. (2005). Placing leaders at the heart of organisational communication. Strategic Communication Management, 9(5), 34.ubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (1994). Communication research measures. New York: Guilford Press.luss, D., Klimchak, M., & Holmes, J. (2008). Perceived organisational support as a mediator between relational exchange and organisational identification.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 457–464.oth, E. L. (2009). The case for pluralistic studies of public relations. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public

relations II. New York: Routledge.ourish, D., & Hargie, O. (2009). Communication and organisational success. In O. Hargie, & D. Tourish (Eds.), Auditing organisational success. London:

Routledge.owersWatson, 2010. Capitalizing on Effective Communication. 2009/2010 Communication ROI Study Report.russ, C., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Croll, A., & Burnett, J. (2006). Working life: Employee attitudes and engagement 2006, research report. Chartered

Institute of Personnel and Development.usi-Rauva, C., & Nurkka, J. (2010). Effective internal environment-related communication: An employee perspective. Corporate Communications: An

International Journal, 15(3), 299–314.elch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

16(4), 328–346.elch, M., & Jackson, P. R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(2),

177–198.

hite, C., Vanc, A., & Stafford, G. (2010). Internal communication, information satisfaction, and sense of community: The effect of personal influence. Journal

of Public Relations Research, 22(1), 65–84.ieseke, J., Ahearne, M., Lam, S., & Dick, R. (2009). The role of leaders in internal marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 123–145.

wijze-Koning, K., & de Jong, M. (2007). Evaluating the communication satisfaction questionnaire as a communication audit tool. Management Communi-cation Quarterly, 20(3), 261–282.