Excellence in Internal Communication Management

Introduction

This book examines the role of internal communication, internal relations, and employee communication from a perspective of relationship building through engagement. This work is solidly grounded in the excellence theory of public relations with its emphasis on two-way symmetrical communication (i.e., research and dialog), organizational communication and behavior, leadership theories, and business management geared toward competitive advantage, ethics and moral philosophy, employee engagement, and organizational effectiveness. Although incentive and reward systems are discussed as well as training programs for on-boarding employees, we do not seek to include all of human resources (HR). We see HR as a distinct yet a complimentary function, overlapping in some areas with employee communication.

In the best or ideal sense, employees can be ambassadors of the organization. They can provide information from the front lines of an organization, as well as represent it in the communities in which they work and live. We recognize that, in the real world, not all organizations view employees as a strategic asset, let alone a primary source of competitive advantage. However, leveraging the power of employees who are engaged and motivated with commitment toward organizational goals is an often-untapped source of competitive advantage. This book offers original research and solid theory on how employees can become the best asset of an organization through the lens of strategic internal communication and relationship management.

We undertook researching and writing for a number of reasons. Although symmetrical systems of internal communication are one of the primary components of creating an excellent organization, it is often an area that is overlooked, little understood and researched, yet assumed. We thought that a detailed exposition of the research laying the groundwork for knowledge in this area was long overdue. Public relations managers are often tasked with internal communications, yet there is little research or strategy to drive those efforts. We include new, original, academic research. We discuss important long-standing and emerging issues of employee engagement, change communication, leadership, culture and ethics, communication channels including enterprise social media, and measurement and evaluation. Those new insights are based on a solid grounding in theory. We hope that it provides an essential resource in helping internal communications become an essential contributor to organizational effectiveness.

This book can be an invaluable resource to MBA students, advanced public relations classes, organizational communication instructors, HR courses, scholars in public relations and organizational communication, and professionals all across the world who seek to enhance their employee communication programs. Though the volume includes research and theory, we have conscientiously tried to simplify, clarify, and decrease our reliance on academic jargon, so that it is accessible to professionals and students alike. Chapters are concise because we realize your time is valuable and we want to help make the most of every moment you spend with this book.

Several thanks are in order. Keith Burton, an industry leader and the author of the foreword to this volume offered numerous insights and real-world examples throughout the book to help keep our manuscript grounded in professional practice. His compelling foreword provides a rich insight into the professional world of internal communications, and enormous thanks are due to Keith. Don Stacks has been a patient and thorough editor who always encouraged us to do what was best for the quality of this book, rather than the expediency of its publication. We would like to thank the Arthur W. Page Center for Public Integrity, who funded separate grants for each of us to do some of the book’s original research. We also owe our thanks to the Institute for Public Relations’ (IPR) Organizational Communication Research Center and its former Chief Research Editor, Dr. Bruce Berger, for offering invaluable research insights for this project. The IPR site is also the home of an excellent resource, the 2013 Dictionary of Public Relations Measurement and Research, by Stacks and Bowen that we referenced throughout this book. Lastly, we thank you, the reader, for your time and the confidence you’ve placed in us in your journey into internal communications.

With gratitude,

Shannon A. Bowen, Surfside Beach, South Carolina, USA, and

Rita Linjuan Men, Gainesville, Florida, USA

May 28, 2016

CHAPTER 1

The Evolving Practices of Internal Communication

Internal relations are comprised of communication—both by an organization and interpersonally. Communication is one of the most prevalent activities of any organization (Harris 1993). Communication is needed to coordinate activities among individuals and teams, especially as an organization grows in size or complexity or spreads across borders. Communication coordinates direction from top management and helps employees understand the vision, mission, goals, and objectives of an organization to keep them moving in that direction (Bowen in press). Internal communication, which has been called employee communication (Grunig and Hunt 1984), employee relations, internal relations (Bowen 2005a), or internal communication (Grunig 1992), has expanded both in importance and scope over the past decades.

Research shows that effective internal communication is critical for the success of an organization. First, internal communication keeps employees informed on a daily basis regarding their job, organization, and environment. Internal communication helps employees make sense of the organization, its strategies, and policies. Moreover, internal communication helps organizations acculturate their employees by instilling corporate values and beliefs; it builds trust, shared identity, and loyalty that spurs engagement (Berger 2008; Jiang and Men 2015; Men 2014a, b), and thus greater effectiveness. Furthermore, internal communication connects employees, builds relationships, and strengthens a sense of community and belongingness. Similar to a machine, internal communication ensures that the organization continues to run smoothly. It plays a vital role in important processes such as decision-making, socialization, values, and organizational change management (Berger 2008).

Defining the Function

Internal relations is the broad function of managing relationships with internal stakeholders strategically; using research, internal communication, negotiation and conflict resolution, organizational culture, defining mission, vision, and values, and training and incentive systems (often implemented by the Human Resources [HR]) to incorporate and reinforce internal stakeholders’ values and priorities into daily operations that build and maintain relationships. Ideally, those relationships should result in some mutually beneficial gains to internal stakeholders and organizations alike.

Internal relations is a broad function, but as mentioned earlier, it is heavily reliant and conducted through internal communication. As an interdisciplinary management function that integrates the elements of communication, HR, and marketing, internal communication has been defined from different perspectives (Verčič, Verčič, and Sriramesh 2012). In public relations, internal relations has been termed as internal communication or internal public relations, which emphasizes the management of relationships with internal stakeholders (i.e., employees). Adopting a stakeholder approach, Welch and Jackson (2007) defined internal communication as the strategic management of interactions and relationships between stakeholders at all levels within organizations (p. 183). In marketing, the concept of internal marketing has been developed to address organizational interactions with employees. Under this approach, employees are viewed as internal customers; satisfying the needs and wants of internal customers is deemed important beyond achieving the objectives of the organization (Berry 1981). A basic assumption underlying this notion is the need for satisfied employees to obtain satisfied customers.

Kalla (2005) recognized the multidisciplinary interest in internal communication and proposed the idea of integrated internal communication that incorporates four interrelated research domains: business communication (focused on communication skills of employees), management communication (focused on management capabilities and leadership communication), corporate communication (addressing corporate formal communication), and organizational communication (focused on more philosophical and theoretically oriented issues). It has also been broken down into four dimensions based on the stakeholder groups: line management communication, internal team peer communication, internal project peer communication, and internal corporate communication (Welch and Jackson 2007).

In a more recent dominant view, internal communication is perceived to include three fundamental building blocks, namely (1) hierarchical communication, (2) mass media communication, and (3) social networks (Whitworth 2011). Hierarchical communication is represented by top–down or bottom–up communication among the successive layers of executives, managers, supervisors, and non-management employees. Managers at different levels play an important role in pushing or cascading messages until they reach every employee, and they pass back employee concerns to the top management.

Research has consistently suggested that immediate supervisors are the preferred sources of information for employees and that they have more credibility with employees than senior executives (e.g., Larkin and Larkin 1994; Whitworth 2011). However, companies do not rely solely on managers and senior leaders to communicate with their workforce because managers vary in their communication abilities and skills and in their willingness to share information with their followers. A second major component of internal communication is the use of mass media, such as newspapers, newsletters, magazines, bulletin boards, intranet, TV, webcast, e-mail, and social media, targeted at employee audiences. Such communication programs often start from the communication department and provide control over message timing and wording.

A third major component of internal communication is informal networks. According to Berger (2008), a network represents the flow of information in an organization. In a formal communication network, messages travel through official channels (e.g., e-mail, newsletter, and others) that reflect the hierarchy of an organization (i.e., from higher-level management to employees). By contrast, messages in an informal communication network flow horizontally and often through interpersonal communication among employees (i.e., from employees to peers on a same or similar level in the organization). Employees give, take, share, and exchange the information they receive from managers and read in newsletters and other channels. Although such information may be inaccurate at times, employees often perceive it to be more authentic than formal communication (Berger 2008).

Despite these various approaches to defining the concept, and the differing components comprising it, researchers have come to understand that internal communication encompasses all kinds of formal and informal communication that takes place internally at all levels of an organization. Internal communication is a central process in the organization through which employees share information, meanings, and emotions. It helps to create relationships, construct the culture of the organization, participate in decision-making, and facilitates most other organizational activities. Communication is a process that combines philosophies, values, purposes, people, meanings, channels, and practices. In summary, internal communication plays an enabling role and serves as the foundation of modern organizations (D’Aprix 1996).

Evolution of Internal Communication: Historical Perspectives

Examining the historical context of internal communication is important to fully understand its function and practice. The following section traces the origins of internal communication from 1930–1940 and offers a sketch of the evolution of the practice in the last century. Five theoretical perspectives (i.e., scientific management, human relations, HR, systems, and culture) that shaped the development of present companies, businesses, and corporations (Berger 2008; Harris 1993) offer insights into the evolution of internal communication.

Early Origins: 1930–1940

In their 1965 book, Business and Industrial Communications, W. Charles Redding and George A. Sanborn traced the origins of internal communication to the famous Hawthorne studies. Elton Mayo and colleagues from the Harvard Graduate School of Business came up with the following conclusions, which represent the first serious addressing of employee communication problems:

The attitudes of the employees were more important than the physical conditions as determinants of efficiency.

Direct observations of shop departments yielded considerable information concerning the social organization of employees, their informal interactions, and horizontal communications in general.

A massive interviewing program constituted a noteworthy pioneering effort in the area of industrial communications (cited in Hay 1974, 8).

In 1938, in The Functions of the Executive, Chester I. Barnard emphasized the importance of managerial communication and noted that The first function of the executives is to develop and maintain a system of communications. He recognized that the authority of the message sender alone would not yield acceptance. Instead, the communication must be understandable, consistent with the purpose of the organization, and compatible with personal interest. Alexander B. Heron was credited in 1942 for providing one of the earliest statements of goals and criteria for successful employee communication. He advocated the idea that communication with employees should not be a propagandistic or a persuasive campaign. Employee communication requires two-way sharing of information and the freedom to ask question, get answers, and exchange ideas (Hay 1974, 8). Communication is a joint process that requires efforts from both management and employees. The notions of two-way communication and participation are still a part of our research in public relations theory today.

The theory and practice of internal communication started during the 1930s and 1940s. Since then, the field has evolved for decades in parallel with the development of perspectives in understanding organizations. Previous scholars such as Bruce Berger and Thomas Harris summarized the following views in the evolution of internal communication. Built on their discussion and insights, the next section focuses on the influence of the evolution of organizational structure, behavior, and management philosophy on internal communication formats and characteristics.

Scientific Management Perspective

Scientific management is grounded in a classic approach to organizations, which emphasizes the structure, predictability, a high division of labor, and control of the organization through careful job design to increase efficiency and productivity. Three theorists in the 20th century contributed to the early management theoretical perspective and practice. Frederick Taylor (1911) highlighted the responsibility of managers in designing work setting, educating workers, and providing them with proper tools to complete the job. He argues that all workers can be top performers if they are scientifically assigned to the correct task. He also pointed out that the only real incentive for high performance is good and fair pay.

Henri Fayol (1949) is another representative scientific management theorist. Fayol advocated that maximum efficiency could be achieved through the most rational approach to management. Organizations should have a classical and hierarchical pyramid of command, where order is given from the top and cascaded down to the bottom. Strict specifications, accountability, and clear commands at each level are expected. Similar to military operations, it indicates a centralized and rigid organization structure where information flows from the top down. However, Fayol also recognized the need for managers to connect with one another to coordinate activities in times of emergencies or exceptional cases; this early notion of horizontal communication was known as Fayol’s bridge.

Eminent sociologist Weber (1947) contributed to the scientific management theory and practice by introducing bureaucracy to human organizations as a rational and effective system of management. Bureaucracy was originally a concept intended to introduce efficiency to an organization through a set hierarchy and standardization of procedures. Thus, the term, as originally used, has little resemblance to the term’s use in modern parlance. Weber’s bureaucracy was a structure and system where individuals are hired or rewarded based on their ability to do the work, specific rules, policies, processes, and regulations for a rational system, instead of caprice, habit, favoritism, tradition, or nepotism that had hindered organizations in the past. Weber (1930) also advocated the Protestant work ethic that pervades Western culture.

Scientific management provides essential processes for efficiency, productivity, and effective use of manpower. Organizations are treated as machines with individuals as interchangeable parts (Morgan 2006). In such a robust system, communication is dominated by a top–down and centralized way of information dissemination. Communication mainly provides clear task-oriented instructions, reduces misunderstanding, and conveys management directives and decisions to increase work efficiency and productivity, providing an advantage for organizing large systems of production. One-way communication that relies on traditional print media channels is the key feature of internal communication at that time. In this approach, communication is relatively one-way, based on a chain of command or hierarchy, controlled, formal, rational, and task-oriented.

Human Relations (Humanistic) Perspective

The human relations perspective resulted from the Hawthorne studies (Sonnenfeld 1985). The researchers believed that increased attention and employee attitude change increased productivity, regardless of better or worse working conditions. Thus, greater emphasis should be put on the human relations and social aspects of the work setting. Hawthorne’s studies experimentally challenged the premises of the classic scientific management approach. A day’s pay for a day’s work is not all that is needed for effectiveness in the workplace. The motives, human needs, attitudes, and relationships of employees at work are equally, if not more, important than the job design, organizational structure, and rules in the workplace. Later research illustrated the complex interplay of these and many other factors, both humanistic and organizational, in creating effective workplaces.

A people-oriented management philosophy developed whereby managers were told to make employees feel valued and appreciated and to make them feel important in relation to their task objectives and organizational goals. A basic assumption underlying this thought is that improvement of employees’ social aspects of work would make them feel content and happy, leading to higher productivity. Paradoxically, happy employees are not always the most productive (Harris 1993). Similar to the assumption that excessive control leads to stress and burnout, over emphasis on humanistic management can lower productivity when comfort overrides efficiency, or when an individual’s needs supersede the organization’s needs. Subsequent debates and attempts gradually provided evidence that scientific management and human relations are equally important variables.

Given the shift from task orientation to people orientation, communication adopting a human relations approach emphasizes building relationships and boosting employee satisfaction. Although top–down hierarchical communication remains dominant, managers pay more attention to upward communication, listening to employees, and feedback is gathered to gauge employee attitudes. To facilitate social interactions, face-to-face communication plays a vital role, in addition to the traditional kinds of communication, such as intranets or newsletters. Managerial communication at this stage becomes less formal and more open. Overall, communication is relationship-oriented, people-oriented, and less formal, and it combines upward, downward, and horizontal communications.

HR Management Perspective

Developed in the 1960s, the HR approach was built on the evolution of scientific management and human relations approaches. HR management recognized the need for both structured development and awareness of human needs in the organization. Theory X–Theory Y, developed by Douglas McGregor (1960) laid an important theoretical foundation for this approach. Theory X assumed that individuals who lack ambition and motivation are indifferent to organizational needs, resist change, and prefer to put forth as little effort as possible to receive strong rewards. Thus, Theory X managers tend to be more authoritarian and to rely more on control and coercion to achieve the desired organizational outputs. By contrast, Theory Y managers viewed employees as responsible and potentially motivated individuals. They believe that if employees are provided with proper opportunities for growth and development, they are likely to perform extremely well. With such trust, Theory Y managers show individual respect to employees and offer opportunities for their individual growth and personal development.

Another major contributor of the HR approach is Rensis Likert (1967), who also combined the scientific management and humanistic perspectives. He held that an employee-centered management style with clear task orientation would produce the best results. In Likert’s explanation of his System 4 framework, the important role of supervisors or managers is emphasized as linking pins connecting followers from one level to the next level, all the way to the top or bottom of the organizational hierarchy. Supervisors and subordinates form groups, and communication happens not only top–down or bottom–up in the organization, but also from groups to individuals. System 4 delegates some power to employees and invites their participation in the decision-making process. Trust in employees is valued.

HR communication is multidimensional, horizontal, top–down, and bottom–up across different levels in the organization. Information is provided for employee growth and individual development. Two-way and open communication invites employee participation and boosts innovation in the organization. Feedback is gathered so that employees’ perspectives are considered in the decision-making process. The importance of managerial communication and group communication is increasingly recognized. Trust, empowerment, and participation emerge as important issues.

Systems Theory Perspective

Sociologist Niklas Luhmann developed a comprehensive theory of organizations as systems known as the systems theory (1979, 1984). Theories in the 1970s adopted the systems perspective to understand the way organizations work. The systems theory argues that an organization is a system composed of interrelated parts (i.e., subsystems) that are interdependent with the internal and external environments (Bertalanffy 1934, 1968; Weick 1979). An organization does not operate in a vacuum. An organization relies on inputs, such as energy, materials, personnel, money, information, and other resources, to