Internal communication content: a critical exploration of what

organisations provide and what employees require

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

1. Introduction

Internal communication is becoming increasingly recognised as a critical

communication function. According to Moreno et al (2010 p, 101), respondents in the
European Communication Monitor, 2009, “expect that internal communication and
change management will be the second important discipline next year, right behind
corporate communication”. Organisations have long recognised the importance of
internal communication, though this is often seen from the perspective of the
organisation rather than the employee. As Welch and Jackson (2007 p. 187) argue,
“research into employee preferences for channel and content of internal corporate
communication is required to ensure it meets employees’ needs”. This is echoed by
Uusi-Rauva and Nurkka (2010, p. 303), who assert that little research has focused on
finding out what employees consider important in the internal “expert communication
process”.

In the wider communication field, the locus of academic debate has tended to be
external, rather than internal. However, 26 years ago, Grunig and Hunt (1984 pp.
244-5) highlighted that “A great deal of money is spent on achieving a degree of
journalistic slick which does little in communicating to employees but does much to
satisfy the egos of communications technicians”. Morris and Goldsworthy (2008 p.
130) suggest that this is still the case and, furthermore, there is a dark side to internal
communication; it is “the branch of the modern PR industry that best realises the
propagandist’s dream”. This is based on the contention that organisations have a
monopoly on formal communication channels and the collapse of alternative
channels such as those provided by trade unions. In contrast, a two-way
communication approach entails making publications “more employee-centred than
management centred” although this in itself is not dialogical, so Grunig and Hunt
(1984, p. 246) also argue that symmetrical programs also use many non-traditional,
nonprint media and techniques that emphasise interpersonal communication and
dialogue with management.

1|Page Copyright Kevin Ruck

This paper suggests that internal communication is often dominated by a journalistic
“tell” approach that does little to acknowledge the communication needs of
employees. It analyses the key reasons why organisations invest in internal
communication, what the benefits are to them and what communication employees
require and expect from their organisations. The focus of the paper is the content of
communication rather than the channels used. This is a separate, albeit closely
linked, topic that requires consequential analysis. The approach taken in the paper is
to consider internal communication from three contexts; organisational identification
and engagement, change or uncertainty, and organisational learning. Organisational
identification and engagement acknowledges the longer term relationship that an
employee has with an organisation. Change and uncertainty is a time when
communication expectations rise (Dawson, 2004 p. 61) and organisational learning
reflects the importance of knowledge for both the organisation and the employee
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2000).

2. Organisational identification and engagement

There is overwhelming evidence that effective internal communication is linked to

organisational success (Byrne and LeMay, 2006 p. 152) and the key to this is to have
first line managers who are effective communicators (Hargie and Tourish, 2004 p.
247). Goldhaber et al (1978 p. 82) found that employees primary needs include, first,
more information about personal, job-related matters, and then, information about
organizational decision making and a greater opportunity to voice complaints and
evaluate superiors. According to the consultancy, Towers Watson (2010, p. x), most
firms do well at communicating about the business; “however…less than half of firms
report they are effective at communicating to employees regarding how their actions
affect the customer or increase productivity”. Towers Watson (2010) go on to report
that internal communication messages are delivered either centrally or locally and
content differs as shown in table 1 below.

2|Page Copyright Kevin Ruck

 Messages delivered centrally Messages delivered locally
Explaining and promoting new Helping employees understand the
programs and policies business
Educating employees about Telling employees how their actions
organizational culture and values affect the customer
Providing information on organizational Integrating new employees into the
performance and financial objectives organization
Providing individuals with information
about the true value of their total
compensation package

Table 1 Towers Watson 2009/2010 Communication ROI Study Report.

However, there is no evidence in the report to suggest that these are the most
important topics that employees expect managers to discuss. The conclusion that
firms do well at communicating about the business is also challenged by Truss (2006
p. 13-14) who found that 25 per cent of employees say that their manager rarely or
never makes them feel their work counts. And only around half of all employees say
that their manager usually or always “consults me on matters of importance” or
“keeps me in touch with what is going on”. In general, 42 per cent of employees say
that they are not kept very well informed about what is going on in their organisation
(Truss, 2006, p. 17) and this applies to both the public and private sectors.

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 and Tourish, 2009
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

3|Page Copyright Kevin Ruck

These results signify the importance of upward feedback and managers closing the
loop of concerns raised. They also highlight an interest in “things that go wrong”; this
does not sit comfortably with a journalistic approach that can often be seen as
organisational propaganda. However, the results may be specific to the organisation
and the situation it was in at the time of the research. The general focus of internal
communication audits tends not to be on content so much as process. For example,
Tourish and Hargie (2009, p. 31) state that audits typically focus on who is
communicating with whom, the issues that receive attention, the volume of
information sent and received, levels of trust and the quality of working relationships.
Valuable as these perspectives are, this highlights the general starting point for
internal communication audits and research; the organisational perspective on
process rather than individual employee expectations of content. In the research
conducted for this paper, no articles were found that specifically tackled what
employees would like their organisation to communicate. As Chen et al (2006 p. 242)
argue, “A review of the research on organizational processes concluded that member
satisfaction with organizational communication practices has been ignored”.

D’Aprix (2006 p. 238) does place an emphasis on the employee perspective in his
model of the employee questions that line managers must answer (see figure 1). This
is similar to Robertson’s proposal (above) with the overwhelming focus on the
individual’s role at work. D’Aprix bases this on work conducted in the practitioner
survey field on employee engagement, for example, Gallup, that suggests that it is an
individual’s role and work that are the most important engagement factors. However,
this is to sideline or underplay the role that connection to the wider organisation has
in engagement. It also runs counter to research by Truss (2006, p. 45) that found that
the three most important factors for engagement are:

1) having opportunities to feed your views upwards

2) feeling well informed about what is happening in the organisation, and
3) thinking that your manager is committed to your organization

4|Page Copyright Kevin Ruck

Figure 1: D’Aprix’s (2006) model of the employee questions line managers must
answer

Miller (2009) suggests that the content of internal communication is dependent on the
approach to management in the organisation. For example, in a classical
organisation it is argued that communication about task is very narrowly focused
(Miller, 2009, p. 29). However, in human relations organisations the innovation
content of communication is critical (Miller, 2009, p. 50). Sluss et al (2008 p. 457)
point out that although a myriad of potential exchange relationships exist within and
between organizations, all employees have two seemingly preeminent relationships
at work; one with the immediate supervisor, and one with the organization.
Organizational identification, based on social identity theory, is the degree of
oneness with the organisation and has been found to be associated with job
satisfaction, job involvement, turnover intentions, and in role and extra-role
performance. Leiter and Bakker (2010, p. 2) suggest that “Employees’ responses to
organizational policies, practices and structures affect their potential to experience
engagement”. This is illustrated in a social identity theory approach to organisational
identification adopted by Millward and Postmes (2010, p. 335) in a study of business
managers in the UK. They reported that the fact that identification with the
superordinate grouping of “the organisation” was particularly relevant to performance
is important for theoretical, empirical and pragmatic reasons. This reinforces
research by Wieseke (2009) that found the higher the level of organisational identity
of sales managers the greater the sales quota achievement. Furthermore, a lack of
5|Page Copyright Kevin Ruck
organisational identification has, according to Knight and Haslam (2010, p. 721) been
associated with increased stress and burnout, withdrawal, and sickness. These are
powerful drivers for an organisation’s investment in what Welch and Jackson term
“Internal Corporate Communication” (2007, p. 186) defined as “communication
between an organisation’s strategic managers and its internal stakeholders, designed
to promote commitment to the organisation, a sense of belonging to it, awareness of
its changing environment and understanding of its evolving aims”. However, a critical
perspective on communication argues that identification is simply another form of
organisational control where “an individual identifies with the values of the
organization or work group and hence will act in accordance with those values even
in the absence of simple, technological or bureaucratic control” (Miller, 2009 p. 111).
A potential counter-balance is the development of greater employee voice, seen by
the CIPD (2010, pp. 11-12) as mutuality within organisations that is similar to
partnership working where employees are at the heart of strategy development and
delivery.

Although D’Aprix includes organizational vision, mission, and values in his model, the
detail of the content in these categories requires deeper consideration For example,
corporate image and identity is not prioritised in the literature on internal
communication as it is often seen more as the realm of external communication.
However, Cartwright and Holmes (2006 p. 200) suggest that it can matter a great
deal to an employee as it represents their assessment of what characteristics others
are likely to ascribe to them because they work for a particular organization.
Holtzhausen and Fourie (2009 p. 340) argue that the non-visual elements of the
corporate identity impact on employer-employee relationships and thus need special
attention when managing employer-employee relationships. Although employees are
interested in knowing about organisational strategy, it is how it is discussed that is
critical. Research conducted by Daymon (1993 p. 247) highlighted that the reasons
why employees give up on the communication process is the failure to connect
strategy to people:

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 fiscal
policies. . . .

6|Page Copyright Kevin Ruck

Some organisations may have genuinely held concerns about sharing information
with employees. However, Marques (2010 p. 52) found that employees expect
mangers to be responsible about this. As one of the participants maintained,
“Communicators need to be responsible with the messages they are sending, and
the receivers need to be responsible with the messages they are receiving”. Sluss et
al (2008, p. 458) suggest that, in terms of values, perceived organisational support is
a key factor. This is defined as the subordinate’s perception of the extent that ‘their
work organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being. It is
especially important as many more people today “are seeking a greater sense of
meaning and purpose in their extending working lives” (Cartwright and Holmes, 2006
p. 200). In summary, a revised model of employee questions to be addressed
through line manager and corporate internal communication is required and this is
outlined in figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Model of employee questions to be addressed through line manager and

corporate internal communication

The model aims to incorporate a balance between individual and internal corporate
communication. It also incorporates the importance of employee voice, based on
being well informed together with questions of organisational support and
identification. The model forms the basis for internal communication measurement
that can be associated with levels of engagement.

7|Page Copyright Kevin Ruck

3. Internal communication in times of change or uncertainty

The record on change management is not good. Daly et al (2003 p. 153), claim that
research indicates that up to 70 per cent of change programmes fail and poor internal
communication is seen as the principal reason for such failure. Clampitt (2009 p.
130) found in research in for-profit organisations that employees frequently
complained about not being informed of changes, decisions and future plans. As
Byrne and LeMay (2006 p. 153) point out:

Organizations have a need to share with employees critical information, both

positive and negative, about major changes in business that affect the
organization and/or the employees directly. For example, acquisitions, layoffs,
substantial changes in the executive staff, changes in stock price or earnings,
loss of a large customer, a big sale to a new customer, rumors that are both
founded and unfounded, legal actions against the organization, and take-over
attempts are all critical information that must be shared in a timely, yet
sensitive manner.

Whether these are the topics that organisations discuss with employees is not
revealed. Clampitt (2009, p. 217) reports that topics of concern are typically:
economic loss, inconvenience, loss of wages, job stability, and workloads. More
research is required about the topics that employees require information about in
times of uncertainty as there may also be deeper issues that they may be reluctant to
discuss. Jimmieson et al (2010 p. 11) suggest that employees may perceive
organizational change as a major source of threat to their personal career paths and
financial well-being and also may experience the loss of many intangible features
associated with their work environment, such as power and prestige, and a sense of
community at work. Leaders instinctively know that communication in times of
change and uncertainty is important. Indeed, change is fundamentally about
communication, yet many organisations do not understand how to go about it. For
example, job security is, for an employee, a primary interest (Elving, 2005 p. 133),
yet, according to a Towers Watson (2010 p. 13) report, 24 percent of companies
provide no information on this topic. This may not be too surprising. Wray and
Fellenz (2007 p. 5) argue that “There has been very little empirical research exploring
precisely how to communicate change” (italics added). Furthermore, what research
has been conducted tends again to focus on the processes of communication rather

8|Page Copyright Kevin Ruck

than the needs of the employee. This is compounded by management thinking that
presents change as a linear process (Kotter and Rathgeber, 2006 p. 130-1) and
related communication as a persuasive process (Garvin and Roberto, 2005 p. 28) or
three phases of research, cascade, and monitoring (Barrett, 2004). All approaches
are too simplistic and as Wheatley (2006 p. 144) observes “To become effective at
change we must leave behind the imaginary organisation we design and learn to
work with the real organization, which will always be a dense network of
interdependent relationships”. This also includes taking more of an employee
perspective, as Frahm and Brown (2007 p. 372) argue, understanding employees as
“targets of change” suggests planned change, and does not consider the proactive
and “driver”-like roles those employees pursue in continuous change efforts. Instead,
as Jimmieson et al (2010 p. 12) report, research has found that better reactions to
job redundancies were observed when information about why resources were
allocated in particular ways was provided to employees. Ultimately, according to
Langer and Thorup (2006 p. 376) successful change communication is not based on
standardisation and discipline, but on the creation of opportunities for each voice to
express itself and contribute in a new organisational framework. Summarising the
literature, Johansson and Heide (2008 p. 291) outline three different approaches to
communication during organizational change:

(1) communication as a tool;

(2) communication as a socially constructed process; and
(3) communication as social transformation

The field has, to date, been dominated by practitioner and academic approaches
focused on communication as a tool rather than as a socially constructed and socially
transformative process. For example, Salem (2008) explores the seven
communication reasons organizations do not change. This is based on a quantitative
research that found that communication during failed change efforts seldom involves
enough communication opportunities, lacks any sense of emerging identification,
engenders distrust, and lacks productive humor (Salem, 2008 p. 344). Although this
incorporates some aspects of what employees experience, the research is
undermined through a dismissal of a qualitative methodology applicable to social
aspects, “It is difficult to gather data about social change. Qualitative approaches
provide rich data, but the veracity of such data is suspect because it takes so long to
gather and analyze”.

9|Page Copyright Kevin Ruck

Quirke (2008 p. 150-1) emphasises the importance for employees to understand the
“why” as well as the “what” and argues that unless you draw the bigger picture, and
prepare the way with the “why” it is difficult to get change properly understood, let
alone implemented. Taking an employee centred perspective, Kegan and Lahey
(2001 p. 51) suggest that:

Resistance to change does not reflect opposition, nor is it merely a result of

inertia. Instead, even as they hold a sincere commitment to change, many
people are unwittingly applying productive energy toward a hidden competing
commitment. The resulting dynamic equilibrium stalls the effort in what looks
like resistance but is in fact a kind of personal immunity to change.

Kegan and Lahey (2001 p. 55) advocate a different approach to planned

communication; “The first question we ask is, “what would you like to see changed at
work, so that you could be more effective or so that work would be more satisfying?””
. Although there is little research to indicate what employees want to discuss in times
of change, this approach takes a different perspective, focused more on what
Smythe (2007 p. 46-52) terms “co-creation”. For example, when employees are
involved at the outset and asked for their input, this can be beneficial to the
organisation and employees. Langer and Thorup analyse storytelling and change in
an airline company (2006 p. 373) where the approach was to develop a mission, a
vision and a set of values created primarily by the employees themselves and born
out of a process in which everyone was heard, seen and taken seriously…the
process was to involve dialogue – it was to be dynamic, giving the organisation the
sense of being a community. Langer and Thorup report that the results achieved
seem more promising than the results of previous internal under-communication or
value-communication determined by the formal top-down decision-making paths.
They conclude that “…it is now necessary to communicate with the employees about
organisational changes and developments, with the management listening to
employee stories and regarding them as a creative and important resource” (Langer
and Thorup, 2006 p. 376).

10 | P a g e Copyright Kevin Ruck

A connection can also be made with organisational identification, discussed in the
previous section, and organizational change. Hui and Lee (2000 p. 227) found that
Organisational Based Self-Esteem (OBSE), a feeling that an employee is playing a
meaningful role in the organisation, moderated the relationship between intrinsic
motivation and anticipated change, organisational commitment and anticipated
change and absenteeism and anticipated change. Change is no longer an
occasional, planned, activity - it is business as usual in many organisations. As such,
the ongoing relationship that an employee has with his/her line manager and the
wider organisation is a critical factor in successful change that is mutually beneficial
for the employee and the organisation. In summary, more research is clearly required
to determine what employees want to hear about in times of uncertainty. However,
this in itself is still addressing employees as if they are a group of people that
organisations need to find out more about, rather than people to work with in order to
determine how the organisation could develop and change. It is as much about “how”
as it is the “what” and the “why”.

4. Organisational learning

The rise of knowledge management is variously described as a fad or a revolution in

competitive advantage grounded in the know-how (practical knowledge) and know-
what (formal or cognitive knowledge) of the people who develop and use knowledge
in organisations (Zorn and Taylor, 2004 p. 96). According to Yeomans (2008 p. 275)
the learning organization concept was first popularised by management scientists
and consultants in the 1990s as a way for organisations to create the conditions for
managers to challenge established organizational routines. It was a process whereby
employees enhanced personal capabilities that were used by the organisation for
competitive advantage. Zorn and Taylor (2004, p. 98-9) suggest that there are four
uses of the term “knowledge management” (KM):

KM1 a strategy to enhance intellectual capital

KM2 specific software applications such as Lotus Notes
KM3 small scale initiatives that aim to manage information better
KM4 what knowledge workers do without necessarily labelling it.

11 | P a g e Copyright Kevin Ruck

Internal communication plays a role in all aspects, most obviously in the
management of corporate intranets (Lehmuskallio, 2008). However, there is an
emphasis within internal communication practice on process, technology, and
information management, rather than knowledge generation. Zorn and Taylor (2004,
p. 104) argue that knowledge management is essentially a process of organizational
communication with an emphasis on meaning making. Though knowledge is
dependent on data and information, it evolves through interaction (Heaton and
Taylor, 2002). In an empirical phenomenological research approach to
communication and learning, Yeomans found that, for employees, “communication”
meant personal letters and memos, line management interactions and interactions
with other colleagues. “Learning” meant the acquisition of knowledge through day-to-
day interactions, self-development and studying (Yeomans, 2008, p. 283):

You know there isn’t much warning and it is just a matter of they’d get a letter
on a Monday morning saying “from next Monday you are now based at
another clinic”. “Learning” meant the acquisition of knowledge through day-to-
day interactions, self-development and studying: I think people want to get
themselves educated and feel they want to get more knowledge in the PCT

In terms of the content of internal communication, official sources of news and

information were seen to be too “dry” and lacking in context – participants wanted to
be able to ask questions about some of the articles (Yeomans, 2008, p. 280). This
point reinforces earlier concerns about corporate internal propaganda and suggests
that many employees see communication and learning as separate; the association
in interaction is not always immediately obvious. However, Davies and Nutley (2000)
argue that internal communication is important for learning and even in times of
uncertainty and job losses, individual learning can be retained. This depends on the
assimilation of individual knowledge into new work structures, routines, and norms,
which is in itself dependent on information. Clampitt (2009 p. 122) found that 47 per
cent of employees say they do not receive the information they need to do their job
well - knowledge generation is inevitably impacted by this. Davies and Nutley stress
the importance of how people within the organisation think about the relationships
between the outside world, their organisation, their colleagues, and themselves. In
essence this is a “golden thread” of internal communication that incorporates Welch
and Jackson’s (2007, p. 185) four dimensions of internal communication; corporate,
line management, team peer, and project peer. This has to be set against the culture

12 | P a g e Copyright Kevin Ruck

of the organisation and an interest in what the employee communication needs are.
For example, Mintzberg et al (2005), set out core principles that underpin a learning
culture (shown in table 2).

Celebration of success.
Absence of complacency. Learning organisations reject the adage “if it ain't
broke don't fix it”;
Tolerance of mistakes. Learning from failure is a prerequisite for progressive
organisations.
Belief in human potential.
Recognition of tacit knowledge. Learning organisations recognise that those
individuals closest to processes have the best and most intimate knowledge of
their potential and flaws.
Openness. Because learning organisations try to foster a systems view, sharing
knowledge throughout the organisation is one key to developing learning
capacity.
Trust. For individuals to give of their best, take risks, and develop their
competencies, they must trust that such activities will be appreciated and valued
by colleagues and managers.
Outward looking. Learning organisations are engaged with the world outside
as a rich source of learning opportunities.

Table 2: Overview of Mintzberg’s cultural values for learning

Internal communication and knowledge generation can be constrained by the culture

of the organisation. As McAleese outlines (2010 p. 13-17) culture can be used to
create social order and internal communication may indeed serve to reinforce order.
This is not conducive for adaptability to changing conditions or knowledge
generation. On the other hand, new approaches to internal communication that
emphasise knowledge generation can support cultural change within an approach
described by Schein (1985) as incrementalism, or making small but important
changes over time. Henderson and McAdam (2003 p. 775) argue that an
organisation should strive to make learning central rather than an accidental activity.
This requires communication processes that create opportunities where explicit
and/or tacit knowledge can be originated. They suggest that a reliable and efficient
communication process is required to support the movement of knowledge from one
part of the organisation to another and to ensure that relevant knowledge finds its
way to organisational units that need it (2003, p. 777). This is less knowledge than
information, or corporate internal communication that is the basis for localised
13 | P a g e Copyright Kevin Ruck
knowledge making. The process sounds more straightforward than it is in practice. It
is also a focus again on process rather than employee communication needs. In
research at an electrical utility organisation, Henderson and McAdam (2003, p. 781)
found that all focus groups without exception stated that briefing communication was
always inadequate. This was caused by jargon, vagueness, the lack of localised
content, poor delivery and an inability to answer questions. There is a triple failure
here; poor internal corporate communication content, poorly delivered with
opportunities for discussion (and knowledge generation) denied. More importantly,
the cause of the problem is at least partly due to a lack of attention on meeting the
communication needs of employees generally. A different approach may be slowly
emerging through new patterns of working driven by new technologies. When the
founder of Geek Squad, a computer repair business, discovered that some
employees were playing an online game, Battlefield 2, at work he was at first
concerned. Upon further investigation he found that in the course of the game agents
were often talking shop and swapping tips. This led him to change his thinking
completely and instead of trying to set an agenda he decided to discover his
employees’ agenda and to serve it (Tapscott and Williams, 2006 p. 243). Nayar
(2010 p. 12) extends this thinking and advocates an employee first, customers
second approach. This entails turning the organisation on its head so that managers
are accountable to those who create value not the other way round. In a services
company, the focus on the supporting employee value and knowledge creation can
lead in turn to better customer service. As Neilson et al (2008 p. 6) suggest, one of
the key factors for successful implementation of strategy is employees who have the
information they need to understand the bottom-line impact of their day-to-day
choices.

5. Conclusion

Internal communication is important for organisations and employees. It enables

organisations to be more effective and is integral to employee engagement. Despite
the appreciation of the benefits of internal communication, many organisations have
reasonably modest levels of basic information sharing in place that are the
foundation for understanding how a employee relates his/her role to wider goals and
strategy. This is the realm of corporate internal communication which should serve to
set the framework for localised dialogue with team and project managers. The trap is
that corporate internal communication can be too one-sided and become viewed as
management speak or propaganda. For line managers, greater understanding of the

14 | P a g e Copyright Kevin Ruck

questions that employers expect to be answered is required and a new model is
proposed that balances job related content with wider organisational content. In times
of uncertainty and change the demand for timely and pertinent information increases
and explaining the “why” is critical. However, this is not enough and more focus on
the ”how” of communication is also required, for example, putting employees at the
forefront and involving them more in the process of change. Knowledge management
is dependent on information sharing, so builds on good corporate internal
communication through dialogue and interaction. This too highlights the importance
of serving employee needs for informed meaning making that generates
organisational value. In all respects, the focus of existing research tends to take an
organisational perspective with an emphasis on process rather than content. As a
result, it is currently difficult to ascertain what topics employees expect organisations
to prioritise within internal communication. This gap in the literature is significant as it
underpins channel development and selection and associated communication
resources. More importantly, greater understanding of employee content needs
mitigates against corporate internal communication become propaganda. Finally, it is
essential for meaningful two-way dialogue and upward feedback that enriches an
employee’s experience of work and generates knowledge and commercial value for
the organisation.

References

15 | P a g e Copyright Kevin Ruck

BARRETT, D. J. (ed.) 2004. “A best-practice approach to designing a change
communication programme” London: Routledge.
BYRNE, Z. & LEMAY, E. 2006. Different media for organizational communication:
Perceptions of quality and satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology,
21, 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, 199-208.
CHEN, J., SILVERTHORNE, C. & HUNG, J. 2006. Organization communication,
job stress, organizational commitment, and job performance of accounting
professionals in Taiwan and America. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 27, 242-249.
CIPD 2010. Voice and engagement: how does collective consultation contribute? , 1-
21.
CLAMPITT, P. 2009. Communicating for Managerial Effectiveness: Problems¦
Strategies¦ Solutions, Sage Publications, Inc.
D'APRIX, R. 2006. Throwing rocks at the corporate rhinocerous, the challenges of
employee engagement, Gillis, T. L. (Ed) The IABC Handbook of
Organizational Communication, San Francisco, John Wiley & Sons.
DALY, F., TEAGUE, P. & KITCHEN, P. 2003. Exploring the role of internal
communication during organisational change. Corporate communications: An
international journal, 8, 153-162.
DAVIES, H. & NUTLEY, S. 2000. Developing learning organisations in the new
NHS. British Medical Journal, 320, 998.
DAWSON, P. (ed.) 2004. Managing change, communication and political process,
London: Routledge.
DAYMON, C. 1993. On considering the meaning of managed communication: Or
why employees resist ‘excellent’communication. Journal of Communication
Management, 4, 240-252.
EASTERBY-SMITH, M., CROSSAN, M. & NICOLINI, D. 2000. Organizational
learning: debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37,
783-796.
ELVING, W. 2005. The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate
communications: An international journal, 10, 129-138.
FRAHM, J. & BROWN, K. 2007. First steps: linking change communication to
change receptivity. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 370-
387.
GARVIN, D. & ROBERTO, M. 2005. Change through persuasion. If you read
nothing else on change, read thesebest-selling articles., 26.
GOLDHABER, G., PORTER, D., YATES, M. & LESNIAK, R. 1978. Organizational
communication: 1978. Human Communication Research, 5, 76-96.
GRUNIG, J. & HUNT, T. 1984. Managing public relations, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston New York.
HARGIE, O. T., D. (ed.) 2004. How are we doing? Measuring and monitoring
organizational communication, London: Routledge.
HARGIE, O. T., D. 2009. Charting communication performance in a healthcare
organization, Hargie, O. and Tourish, D (Eds) Auditing Organizational
Communication, London: Routledge.
HEATON, L. & TAYLOR, J. 2002. Knowledge management and professional work.
Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 210.
16 | P a g e Copyright Kevin Ruck
HENDERSON, J. & MCADAM, R. 2003. Adopting a learning-based approach to
improve internal communications: A large utility experience. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20, 774-794.
HOLTZHAUSEN, L. & FOURIE, L. 2009. Employees' perceptions of company
values and objectives and employer-employee relationships: A theoretical
model. Corporate communications: An international journal, 14, 333-344.
HUI, C. & LEE, C. 2000. Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on
organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. Journal of
Management, 26, 215.
JIMMIESON, N., TERRY, D. & CALLAN, V. 2010. A longitudinal study of
employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related
information and change-related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 9, 11-27.
JOHANSSON, C. & HEIDE, M. 2008. Speaking of change: three communication
approaches in studies of organizational change. Corporate communications:
An international journal, 13, 288-305.
KEGAN, R. & LAHEY, L. 2001. The real reason people won’t change. If you read
nothing else on change, read thesebest-selling articles., 51.
KNIGHT, C. & HASLAM, S. 2010. Your Place or Mine? Organizational
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.
KOTTER, J. & RATHGEBER, H. 2006. Our iceberg is melting: Changing and
succeeding under any conditions, St Martins Pr.
LANGER, R. & THORUP, S. 2006. Building trust in times of crisis: Storytelling and
change communication in an airline company. Corporate communications: An
international journal, 11, 371-390.
LEHMUSKALLIO, S. 2008. Intranet editors as corporate gatekeepers and agenda
setters. Corporate communications: An international journal, 13, 95-111.
LEITER, M. A. B., A.B. (ed.) 2010. Work engagement: Introduction, Hove and New
York: Psychology Press.
MARQUES, J. 2010. Enhancing the quality of organizational communication: A
presentation of reflection-based criteria. Journal of Communication
Management, 14, 47-58.
MCALEESE, D. (ed.) 2010. Organisational culture, Harlow: Pearson Education.
MILLER, K. S. 2009. Organizational Communication Approaches and Processes,
Fith Edition, Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
MILLWARD, L. & POSTMES, T. 2010. Who we are affects how we do: the
financial benefits of organizational identification. British Journal of
Management, 21, 327-339.
MINTZBERG, H., AHLSTRAND, B. & LAMPEL, J. 2005. Strategy safari: A
guided tour through the wilds of strategic management, Free Pr.
MORENO, Á., VERHOEVEN, P., TENCH, R. & ZERFASS, A. 2010. European
Communication Monitor 2009. An institutionalized view of how public
relations and communication management professionals face the economic
and media crises in Europe. Public Relations Review, 36, 97-104.
MORRIS, T. & GOLDSWORTHY, S. 2008. PR-a persuasive industry?: spin, public
relations, and the shaping of the modern media, Palgrave Macmillan.
NAYAR, V. 2010. Empoyees First Customers Second, Boston, Harvard Business
Press.
17 | P a g e Copyright Kevin Ruck
NEILSON, G., MARTIN, K. & POWERS, E. 2008. The secrets to successful strategy
execution. Harvard business review, 86, 60-70.
QUIRKE, B. 2008. Making the connections : using internal communication to turn
strategy into action, Aldershot, Gower.
ROBERTSON, E. 2005. Placing leaders at the heart of organizational communication.
Strategic Communication Management, 9, 34.
SALEM, P. 2008. The seven communication reasons organizations do not change.
Corporate communications: An international journal, 13, 333-348.
SCHEIN, E. H. 1985. Organisational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
SLUSS, D., KLIMCHAK, M. & HOLMES, J. 2008. Perceived organizational support
as a mediator between relational exchange and organizational identification.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 457-464.
SMYTHE, J. 2007. The CEO: The Chief Engagement Officer: Turning hierarchy
upside down to drive performance, Gower Pub Co.
TAPSCOTT, D. & WILLIAMS, A. 2006. Wikinomics., London, Atlantic.
TOWERSWATSON 2010. Capitalizing on Effective Communication, . 2009/2010
Communication ROI Study Report.
TRUSS, C. 2006. Working life : employee attitudes and engagement 2006 : [research
report], London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
UUSI-RAUVA, C. & NURKKA, J. Effective internal environment-related
communication: An employee perspective. Corporate communications: An
international journal, 15, 299-314.
WELCH, M. & JACKSON, P. 2007. Rethinking internal communication: a
stakeholder approach. International Journal, 12, 177-198.
WHEATLEY, M. 2006. Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a
chaotic world, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
WIESEKE, J., AHEARNE, M., LAM, S. & DICK, R. 2009. The role of leaders in
internal marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73, 123-145.
WRAY, T. & FELLENZ, M. 2007. Communicating Change-Changing
Communication? Towards a Model of Communication in Planned
Organizational Change
Annual Meeting of the Irish Academy of Management. Belfast.
YEOMANS, L. 2008. “?…? it's a general meeting, it's not for us?…?”: Internal
communication and organizational learning–an interpretive approach.
Corporate communications: An international journal, 13, 271-286.
ZORN, E. T., TAYLOR, J.R. (ed.) 2004. Knowledge management and/as
organizational communication, London: Routledge.

18 | P a g e Copyright Kevin Ruck