Please download the following explanatory handout as a guide to completing this project. Be sure to start this project early in the week, to avoid inadvertently running out of time.
MSM 6633-Communication Project MSM 6633.pdf
You will also need the following three articles. The guideline explains how to use them, as well as how to format them correctly as APA-styled references.
MSM 6633 W6-Harshman & Harshman (1999)-JBE.pdf
MSM 6633 WX-Kelly (2000)-LODJ.pdf
MSM 6633 WX-Welch & Jackson (2007)-CC.pdf TBH i dont think these links will work so i will post them down belowfor you to use
MSM 6633
COMMUNICATION PROJECT:
The Apprentice
The individual communication project is an exercise in developing an effective approach to team
communication. Leaders in organizations are responsible for enabling a smooth communication
process. They must therefore be able to identify communication hindrances and advance solid
recommendations to address them. Accordingly, for this assignment, you will analyze a case in
Griffith and Dunham (2015), select three (3) communication issues, and remedy them by making
recommendations, supported by research. The case is as follows:
CASE 5.1: The Apprentice (Griffith & Dunham, 2015, pp. 91–92).
In negotiating each of the required journal references (cf. the references listed at the end of this
handout), you may dispense with the task of reading the entire article and instead directly search
for the relevant detail inside it. This quick, efficient approach is sufficient and justifiable for
extracting targeted detail when time is scarce. Nevertheless, a thorough reading of the article will
strongly improve your understanding of the theoretical concepts that underlie that detail.
Sections to Include
Title page. APA style (cf. the posted example of how to format an APA-styled paper).
Executive summary. Write an abstract, as shown in the APA sample, but label it an executive
summary. This deviation from standard APA style fits the norms of professional report writing.
Write this section only after completing your paper. To write it, copy key sentences from the body
of the paper, specifying: (a) the issues; (b) what analysis you used to identify the issues; and (c) a
synopsis of your recommendations. Note: The calculated word count ignores the executive
summary, which should largely repeat some of the wording of the report.
Introduction. Provide a brief explanation of the background of the case based on the information
available in the relevant portion of the textbook. Then provide a paragraph to explain the current
or actual situation in the team.
Gap analysis. The gap analysis involves your specifying how communication should function in
the featured team, followed by how communication appears to be functioning at present, based on
the available detail in the case. The gap is the difference that you describe between the real and
the ideal state, for each communication facet (see the four facets of interest in this assignment,
listed below). Identify which communication conditions are most strongly in need of a remedy. If
any case omits discussion of a particular issue, one can safely assume that its status is adequate.
To conduct your gap analysis, you will need to know which specific facets of communication will
generally merit attention in analyses of this kind in general. For this purpose, Welch and Jackson
(2007) have identified the key communication facets as belonging, commitment, understanding,
and awareness. Be sure to address these four concepts in your analysis.
1
Communication Project
As you develop your essay, draw further insights from the textbook, the other three sources listed
in the reference section, and two additional qualifying sources. From Kelly (2000), examine the
interpersonal and organizational barriers to communication. In resolving those barriers, tailor your
explanation to the priority of tying communication norms to the organizational vision.
Recommendations. Advance at least one suggestion for improvement for each communication
facet identified in the gap analysis. Preface each recommendation with an explanation of the
rationale behind it. Then write the recommendation as a numbered item, starting with a verb (this
usage uniquely breaks the normal rule of avoiding the second-person construction in formal essay
writing). Formatting and wording should generally assume the following form:
R1.
Use an outside consultant to train team members in the practice of team member
exchange (TMX). [This recommendation is merely an example.]
Conclusion. Recap what you have sought to accomplish in this report. Then explore the expected
effect of each recommendation (i.e., the implications) on the communication process.
Specifications for this Essay
Submission steps. Upload your essay to the designated Canvas window by the posted deadline.
Physical specifications. The minimum length is 1,400 words from the start of the introduction to
the end of the conclusion, prior to the references. Neither quoted nor parenthetical material counts
toward the length. The calculated length also excludes the title page and executive summary. No
appendices are necessary for this project. Submit the finished paper in Microsoft Word™.
References. Cite at least the textbook (no more than three times), the three journal articles listed
at the end of this handout, and two more qualifying articles (as defined in the syllabus),
downloaded from the Troy University Library. Format the reference entries manually rather than
using the automated tool in Word. Use the appropriate paragraph options in Word.
Note that the reference list shown below is already in correct APA style, except for font size, line
spacing, and the lack of a page break before the section header (viz., “References”). The formatting
of the additional articles that you find should follow exactly the same rules as the scholarly journal
articles shown here.
References
Griffith, B. A., & Dunham, E. B. (2015). Working in teams: Moving from high potential to high
performance. SAGE.
Harshman, E. F., & Harshman, C. L. (1999). Communicating with employees: Building on an ethical
foundation. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006141704179
Kelly, D. (2000). Using vision to improve organisational communication. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 21(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730010318183
Welch, M., & Jackson, P. R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(2), 177–198.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710744847
2
Communicating With
Employees: Building on
an Ethical Foundation
ABSTRACT. The paradigm of work and the formal
organizations within which people work are
changing. Trends in organizations include less hierarchy, integrated structures, empowered employees,
teams and teamwork, labor-management partnerships,
and myriad other changes. Underlying all these
changes is a new emphasis on values regarding how
organizations function. Among the critical organizational functions to which the values framework applies
is communication.
Most models of internal organizational communication are adaptations of the existing model for
communicating externally. These models fall short of
what is needed to impact today’s employees.
The model presented in this paper is based on
seventeen years of work in the transformation of large,
complex organizations. Comparing classic models and
theories of organizations with the characteristics and
needs of high performance systems led to the development of a values-based, employee-driven communication model. The model includes a comparison of
communication in both kinds of systems in terms of
Ellen F. Harshman, Ph.D., J.D., is Associate Dean and
Assistant Professor of Management in the School of
Business and Administration at Saint Louis University.
She teaches courses in the legal environment of business
and other areas of business law. Her career in higher
education includes work in student services, career
planning, and academic affairs. She is the founding
director of a funded program for Women in Business
Leadership at the University.
Carl L. Harshman, Ph.D., is the founder and president
of Carl L. Harshman & Associates, Inc. This firm
consults to major corporations and government agencies
on organizational transformation. He is a former
academic dean and professor at Saint Louis University
and has co-authored two books on organizational change
and team development and has a book in progress on
leadership in team environments.
Ellen F. Harshman
Carl L. Harshman
purposes, principles (The Seven Cs), content, and
techniques.
Introduction
Rapid changes in the social and economic
climates correlate with, and contribute to,
changes in the nature of work in this country.
In fact, many observers of work organizations
believe that the fundamental paradigms of work
and of formal organizations within which work
is carried out, have been irrevocably altered.
Underlying these changes is a new attention to
organizational values which influence how organizations are structured and how they function.
Organizational communication is among the
critical functions in transition and is one of the
areas for which underlying values is critical.
Inherent in the relationship between an organization and its workers is an ethical dimension
which affects the content and structure of the
organization’s formal and informal internal communication. Philosopher Emmanuel Levinas tells
us that inviting one into discourse creates an
ethical demand (1979). If it is possible to
conceive of such an ethical dimension in even a
casual contact with another human being (as does
Levinas), then it is imperative to consider the
ethical demand that arises when employers hire
workers and accept their contributions to the
organization.
Often communications within organizations
do not appear to be based on ethical principles
underlying the employment relationship. For
example, the primary model of traditional
internal organizational communication is a variation of the classic public relations model for
Journal of Business Ethics 19: 3–19, 1999.
© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
4
Ellen F. Harshman and Carl L. Harshman
communicating externally. This model reflects a
certain set of values. Examples of the fundamental values are: control of the organization is
to be held by a small group at the top and
employees are viewed and treated paternalistically
as if they have little or no personal commitment
to the organization’s well-being. Reinforced and
supported by traditional bureaucratic organizational structures, the resulting model of communication is often ineffective in motivating
today’s employees.
By contrast, communication in progressive
organizations reflects a new view of the
relationship with workers. In this context, management provides information to support participation of the workforce in decision-making.
These communication processes are designed to
help employees understand the business, their
role in it, and how the organization is performing. The communication process and content are based on, and demonstrate, values such
as respect, dignity, trust, and shared authority. In
addition to being clear about the values that
guide the organization, a communication system
that supports the success of the enterprise must
reflect and reinforce these values. Communication will be effective only if workers perceive it
to have integrity; that is, the behavior of leaders
is seen as consistent with organizational values.
The substance of this paper is a product of
some seventeen years of consultation to, and field
research on, the transformation of large, complex
organizations. Comparing classic models and
theories of organizations with the characteristics
and practices of high-performance systems led to
the development of a values-based, employeedriven communication model described in this
paper. There is a comparison of communication
in both kinds of systems in terms of purposes,
principles (The Seven Cs), content, and techniques. The communication model is presented
with examples from actual cases in which the
strategies were both successful and unsuccessful.
The first section of the paper is a classic
example of how communication can undermine
an organization. The next section addresses the
role of communication in organizations and
outlines the kinds of problems that presently
exist. The third examines the nature of commu-
nication problems and explores some of the root
causes of those problems. The final section
addresses the issue of how to structure and carry
out communication processes that build trust and
credibility. The recommendations describe the
elements of communication in a high-performance, value-oriented organization.
A values conflict: “The Big Lie”
The setting is a large manufacturing facility. This
situation involves a large board hung in the main
aisle near the entrance to the main building. The
board was a large graph on which management
would chart production goals versus actual
performance for the month. The X-axis was
labeled “Days” (1–31) and the Y-axis was called
“Number Built.” The graph contained a line
indicating the goal for the month.
Two or three times a month, management
would update the graph to indicate progress.
Every month the plant was always behind the
“Goal” curve in actual production. Often , there
was little production in the first 5–8 days of the
month. By the third week of the month, the
“Actual Production” curve was well behind
“Goal” projection. However, when the end-ofmonth results were posted in the first or second
week of the following month, the “Actual” curve
on the graph would almost always reach the
end-of-the-month “Goal.”
The employees knew this depiction could not
be true for they were actually building the
product. The products on the graph for the last
ten or so days came to be known as “Paper Xs,”
where the X represents the name of the product.
This meant that management showed the
products built on paper, but in fact they were not
completed in reality, or if they were, it was at
extraordinary costs in terms of overtime work.
The build problems at the end of every month
were the reason the “Actual” curve showed little
or no production for the first week of the following month. During the first week, the factory
was either completing production of the units
shown as built on last month’s chart or recovering from the massive overtime “sprint to the
finish.” The cycle was never-ending.
Communicating with Employees
This practice led employees to think: “If
management would lie or fail to tell the whole
story to us publicly about something as important as this, they would lie to us about anything.”
As a result of this ongoing practice, the management of the organization lost credibility with
the workforce. The loss of credibility in this
instance, led to issues about the integrity of
management in other situations.
The importance of organizational communication
Communication is one factor that influences how
well an organization performs. According to
Donald White (1982) communication is one of
the vital processes that gives an organization life.
Jay Hall (1980) indicates that communication
is a significant factor in the operation of the
enterprise when he says:
High on the diagnostic checklist of corporate
health is communication. The ease with which
information flows downward, upward, and horizontally is often a major internal indicant of
organizational effectiveness; who listens to whom
may reveal the real as opposed to the apparent
authority structure in a firm; and the proportion
of people who consistently fail to get the message
is frequently taken as a statistical baseline for predicting the efficiency with which plans will be
translated into actions (p. 216).
In working with a large number of public and
private sector corporations and agencies over the
last seventeen years, we have seen a high positive
correlation between performance problems and
communication problems. For example, in the
automobile assembly business, the corporation
would project layoffs, but not tell the workforce
until the last minute they were required to do
so by the labor agreement. The workforce knew
about the projected layoffs because of the
informal information systems that existed in all
these workplaces. As a result of the underground
information, the performance of the factory
would begin to erode as workers assumed that
building less would extend the time before the
layoffs took effect. Analysis of these and other
situations leads us to conclude that faulty com-
5
munication strategies in these organizations
contribute to larger organizational performance
issues and problems.
Most of what is written today about communication focuses on its role in management and
decision making. Over thirty years ago, however,
Bennis and Slater (1964) addressed the role of
communication in defining and affirming the
values of an organization. According to the
authors, communication is not merely a product
of management decision making. Rather, it
represents the fundamental values of the organization. In an article on the emerging democratic
organization, Slater and Bennis said: “What we
have in mind when we use the term ‘democracy’
is not ‘permissiveness’ or ‘laissez faire,’ but a
system of values – a ‘climate of beliefs’ governing
behavior – which people are internally compelled
to affirm by deeds as well as words. . . . These
values include: full and free communication,
regardless of rank and power. . . .” (1964, p. 305).
Slater and Bennis argued in favor of the democratic shift because they believed that such a shift
was a “functional necessity” whenever a system
is competing for survival. Their perspective seems
to gain in importance as organizations approach
the twenty-first century.
Communication is a powerful factor in organizational performance, in part because it is
tangible evidence about what the leadership
believes and the values for which leadership
stands. When the content and process of communication begin to conflict with the fundamental values of the workforce or with
commonly accepted ethical principles, people
tend to respond negatively rather than just to
ignore the dissonance.
Communication problems in organizations
Communication problems in an organization can
take a variety of forms. De Greene (1982) cites
several kinds of difficulties that cause and reflect
communication problems. Included in that list
are examples of transmission problems such as:
one-sided (especially downward) communication
processes; suppression of information; mistakes in
the facts communicated; promulgation of rumor;
6
Ellen F. Harshman and Carl L. Harshman
and/or purposeful or accidental distortion. He
also cites problems at the point communication
is received: for example, information may be
misperceived by the receiver (as a function of
personal “filters” that translate incorrectly); part
or all of the information may be refused by the
recipient; and/or the receiver simply may not be
listening. Interestingly, De Greene contends that
some of the necessary qualities of effective communication – amplification, filtration, enhancement of the signal/noise ratio, etc., are also often
the characteristics associated with the “malfunctions and pathology” in organizations.
De Greene’s work describes the nature of
communication problems, but experience
suggests that there is a prior cause to many of
these problems. In searching for that cause, we
look to data collected on organizations’ assessment for the answer. In this case, we use data
collected at the outset of major organizational
transformation processes. When an organization
commits to changing its culture, an initial assessment process provides a point-in-time “picture”
of the organization. This assessment usually
consists of a paper-and-pencil survey supplemented by focus group interviews of peers.1
The assessment of several organizations over a
seventeen-year period reveals similar patterns.
The patterns pertain to communication difficulties in terms of content (or the amount of
information available) and credibility (the perceived honesty, truthfulness, reliability, and ultimately the integrity) of the sources or sponsors
of the information.
The quantity question: how well informed are you?
In a survey of about one hundred business firms
to determine how much of what top management has to say is actually understood, Davis
(1961) obtained the following results:
• at the vice-presidential level, managers
understand about two-thirds of what they
hear from the top;
• at the general supervisor level, managers
understand 56% of the top-level information;
• at the manager level, managers perceive
only 40%;
• foremen perceive 30%; and,
• persons on the production line understand
20% of the information.
A series of questions on the written survey
used at the outset of our organizational change
process are designed to indicate how well
informed employees feel. When asked whether
they agreed or disagreed with the statement:
“The Corporation (Management) gives us enough
information about the business . . . ,” we found the
following for the salaried and hourly workforces
in three different locations:
Major equipment manufacturer
Integrated steel mill
Consumer products plant
20%
12%
20%
These results are consistent with, but somewhat
more negative than, the trends reported by Davis.
Given the small percentages of employees
overall who indicate that they receive enough
information, how does this lack of information
translate into the workplace? Here are three
examples:
• Public agency employees thought department budgets were secret. As a result, based
on negative, worst-case analysis of the
situation, most employees believed that the
agency had a lot more money than it indicated and that managers were withholding
spending as a means to earn additional
bonuses. This was a constant source of anger
and irritation to employees. As a result of
this finding, the agency devoted considerable effort and resources to explaining that
all budgets were public information and in
helping employees, who were interested,
learn how to interpret the numbers.
• Employees in one production facility did
not know the company’s customers. The
effect of this lack of knowledge was to
forego any opportunity to have employees
identify with the end user/consumer as a
means of building commitment to quality
and service. As a result of this finding, the
company devoted extensive resources to
employee education about customers,
customer needs, and even linked employees
to helping with customer service problems.
Communicating with Employees
• In the early 1990s, vice-presidents of a $100
million-plus division were not shown the
annual budgets and were not privileged to
see the corporate strategic plan. In just
seven years the corporation has gone from
a “closed” information system to an “open”
one in which not only do vice-presidents
get the information on strategic plans,
finance, and budgets, but they share that
information throughout their respective
organizations. One vice-president notes that
today, “Union leaders get more information
about the business than I was getting eight
years ago.”
The results of surveys and examples from work
sites substantiate an information void in these
organizations. The amount of information transmitted and received is one part of the communication problem. The next section explores the
other: the credibility of information.
The quality question: how believable is the
information?
The second dimension we assessed is the believability of the information. Based on the interviews that are concurrent with the surveys,
believability is tied directly to credibility, and
credibility is important because it is related to
employees’ judgments about leaders’ qualities
such as integrity and honesty. Integrity and
honesty have been identified as critical to the
healthy organization. According to Phillip
Selznick (1957):
The building of integrity is part of what we have
called the “institutional embodiment of purpose,”
and its protection is a major function of leadership.
The protection of integrity is more than an aesthetic or expressive exercise, more than an attempt
to preserve a comforting, familiar environment. It
is a practical concern of the first importance
because the defense of integrity is also defense of
an organization’s “distinctive competence.” As
institutionalization progresses, the enterprise takes
on a special character and this means that it
becomes peculiarly competent to do a particular
kind of work (pp. 138–139).
Underscoring Selznick’s contentions, Autry
(1991) says that honesty is the “single most
7
important factor in a manager’s relationship with
employees and fellow workers” (p. 17).
The survey assesses the credibility of leadership (the source of information and controllers
of the communication systems) with the question:
“When the Corporation/ Management says something,
you can believe it’s true . . .” Here are the percentages of employees who “agree” with this item:
Major equipment manufacturer
Integrated steel mill
Consumer products plant
22%
16%
10%
These are distressing numbers since the believability of information is a necessary condition for
its use. These low ratings on believability were
directly related to employees’ interpretations of
credibility (and, hence, integrity) of the leaders
of the organization. The resulting problem is
worse than simply an information void. Not only
is there no information at the point of work, but
also there is a deeper concern about the fundamental values on which the organization operates
and which guide the behavior of leaders.
So what happens when there are credibility problems?
Low credibility has several debilitating effects on
the workforce. Here are the primary impacts they
report to us in interviews:
• Employees stop listening to the information
coming to them and therefore miss a lot.
• Employees won’t believe what is told to
them even when they do listen.
• In the absence of what employees consider
to be valid and credible information,
employees and groups such as union officials create their own interpretations of
what is happening or being said (myths and
rumors) in order to fill the gaps.
• Finally, in the absence of timely, credible
information, employees make “worst case”
interpretations about the information they
do get and, in turn, act on those interpretations.
Here are two examples (in addition to “The
Big Lie” reported earlier) of communication
practices that damage the credibility of leadership
and impact negatively the performance of the
organization.
8
Ellen F. Harshman and Carl L. Harshman
Contracting out. Union officials and members
were told that they could not compete with
outside contractors because their labor costs were
too high. The result of this cost comparison
would likely be a shutdown of their business unit.
When the employees, a vice-president, and the
union official got involved, they discovered two
kinds of problems. First, the company financial
people had been including unreasonably high
overhead on the internal bid price making it
impossible to compete with outsiders. Second,
when the workers began to study the operation
with an eye toward reducing costs, they discovered a number of sloppy and/or questionable
management practices including “featherbedding” (assigning managers who were out of
a job just to keep them employed) and poor
decision making (managers who did not understand this particular part of the business would
make naive decisions that ran up costs and
reduced productivity). As it turns out, over a
six-month period, the hourly employees in this
unit were able, with the right information and
support, to reduce the cost of their product by
67%! Unfortunately, their efforts were in vain.
The company closed the business unit six months
later because the improvements came too late.
Public sector “P” word. One of the notorious
“undiscussables” in the public sector these days
is “privatization.” Employees in general, and
unions in particular, are very concerned about
the loss of jobs through the reassignment of work
to private companies. In this case, the officials
of a public sector organization have an unwritten
rule about not discussing the privatization issue
in public, at meetings with employees, or in
print. The assumption is that open discussion of
the issue will only create problems and conflict
and that by avoiding discussion, they will avoid
some of the downside of the issue. This approach
creates a contradiction that inevitably leads to
problems. The contradiction is a product of the
best source of information (agency officials) not
discussing the one topic (privatization) that is
uppermost in the minds of the organization’s
primary stakeholders (employees). As a result, in
a context in which there is fairly low trust and
low credibility of management, the employees
(worst case) assume that the agency has a master
plan to get rid of a lot of work and, consequently,
of their jobs.
The continuity question: why do the conditions persist?
A question emerging from the lack of information and credibility data is: “Why do these conditions persist?” In the organizations with which
we have worked, the leadership at all levels
consists of intelligent, mature, committed men
and women who typically indicate a desire to
do the right things for the people and the success
of the business. If that is the case, then, the results
and examples above are contradictions to those
desires.
The potential reason for the discrepancy
between what leadership says it wants and what
actually exists may be explained in the differences
in perceptions at various levels of the organization. In Table I, we have summarized the results
for information and credibility data across a
number of organizations. The results show clearly
that the level at which an individual works in the
organization is correlated to how adequate and
credible he/she perceives the information
received.
The implication of the pattern is that the
managers at the top of the organization, who
“own” the information and who control the
information systems, are not likely to perceive
the situation the same as others lower in the hierarchy. That is, the leadership of the organization
does not perceive either a problem of a lack of
information or of the credibility of leadership
(themselves and their superiors). If that is the
case, it is fairly easy to understand why the conditions persist at lower levels in the organization.
TABLE I
A summary of amount of information and
credibility data for various levels of organizations
Target
population
Receive
enough
information
Perceive
management
as credible
Top management
Middle management
Front-line employees
85%
55%
20%
88%
50%
22%
Communicating with Employees
On more than one occasion in the assessment
process, top leaders have expressed great concern
over the inaccuracy of the results. By this they
mean that the numbers on the paper do not
compare favorably to their perceptions of the situation. In these cases, the top manager is likely
to invoke an alternative explanation such as:
“The results are a product of the way the
question was worded,” or “Sure, you get that
kind of picture, only the people who are
unhappy responded to the survey.” The fact is
that neither is the case. Further, when the instrument is administered in an organization that has
implemented serious changes as part of a followup survey three to four years later, the numbers
are significantly more positive.
The data and organizational experience after
the assessments confirm that top leaders are not
aware of, and cannot identify with, the fact that
employees lower in the organization do not have
the information they need or that only a small
fraction believe what they hear. The discrepancy
between what top leaders believe and what
employees in the middle and at the front line
believe is, in our judgment, the basis for the continuation of the communication problems over
time.
Summary
The data from organizational surveys indicate
(and face-to-face interviews with employees
confirm) that there are problems in a number of
organizations with both the amount (too little)
of information employees receive and with the
credibility (low) of the leaders who represent the
source of information. The analysis of the data
on the basis of where employees reside in the
hierarchy describe contexts in which the top
leaders, who are responsible for information and
communication systems, view the situation much
more positively than their counterparts at lower
levels. This discrepancy is hypothesized as the
basis for the persistence of the information and
credibility problems over time.
In the next section, we explore the nature of
the proposed compact between organizations and
their members from the perspectives of organizations and of leadership.
9
Organizational values: effect on the
organization-employee relationship
Over twenty years ago, in The Human Nature of
Organizations, J. Douglas Brown (1973) said:
“The complex of technical devices which have
come to facilitate the process of communication
in larger organizations tends to divert attention
from the essential truth that effective communication is more a matter of minds than of
machines” (p. 53). Advances in communication
technology compel our attention, particularly as
electronic vehicles become available to facilitate
rapid, wide-spread dissemination of messages.
Yet, it is important not to let technology distract
us from the critical components of organizational
communication. To this end, Brown noted that
the most important component within communication is concerned with “values, purposes,
standards, and motivation” (p. 64). In accord with
Brown’s assertion, this section of the paper
focuses on the place of values and principles that
set the stage, and provide the basis for, organizational communication.
James Autry (1991), the former military officer
and corporate chief executive officer, contends
that:
Management is, in fact, a sacred trust in which the
well-being of other people is put in your care
during most of the waking hours. It is a trust
placed upon you first by those who put you in the
job, but more important than that, it is a trust
placed upon you after you get the job by those
whom you are to manage (p. 15).
Autry proposes that the idea of management as
a sacred trust has proof in the functions performed
by those in positions of leadership and caring.
Among those functions is communication. In
addition to the treatment of employees (either
face-to-face or in policy decisions), communication is a strong, tangible sign of the underlying beliefs of leadership in an organization. As
with the difficulty for children whose parents
preach honesty, but discuss incomplete reporting
of income or inflating expenses on their tax returns, employees have great difficulty with leaders
who talk one set of values, but appear in dayto-day communication to violate those values.
10
Ellen F. Harshman and Carl L. Harshman
In his book entitled Developing Corporate
Character, Alan Wilkins (1989) concluded that:
. . . many employees have lost the motivation that
once fueled their individual contributions.
Specifically, they have lost a motivational hope for
appropriate rewards and success. This hope comes
in part from a faith in the fairness of the organization, its leaders, and other employees (p. 3).
He observed that when the day-to-day behavior
of top executives or others with influence is not
consistent with their espoused commitments –
that is, when they do not “walk their talk” –
employees become cynical. This cynicism translates into performance problems. By their own
admission in the organizational interviews we
conduct, employees indicate that their behavior,
no matter what, is justified on the basis of the
behavior of their leaders. The result is lower
productivity, increased cost, and quality problems.
So why, with all the readily available technology and highly educated leadership, do we
have so much difficulty with communication in
organizations? Some analysts believe that the
change is a product of the loss of the Protestant
Ethic in the workplace. Max Weber (1958)
described the Protestant Ethic as “a set of beliefs
that represented ‘secular asceticism’” – the
methodical, rational subjection of human impulse
and desire to do God’s will through “restless,
continuous, systematic work in a worldly calling”
(p. 172). This work ethic provided both the
economic and the moral foundations for modern
capitalism.
In many ways, leadership behavior in matters
of communication represent an abandonment of
the Protestant Ethic. This may not be an isolated
phenomenon, but one tied to the evolution of
the bureaucratic business over the last century.
According to Jackall (1992), the decline of the
Protestant Ethic was a result of the success of the
Industrial Revolution. He said:
Affluence and the emergence of the consumer
society were responsible, however, for the demise
of only aspects of the old ethic – namely, the
imperatives for saving and investment. The core
of the ethic, even in its later, secularized form –
self-reliance, unremitting devotion to work, and a
morality that postulated just rewards for work well
done – was undermined by the complete transformation of the organizational form of work itself.
The hallmarks of the emerging modern production and distribution systems were administrative
hierarchies, standardized work procedures, regularized timetables, uniform policies, and centralized control – in a word, the bureaucratization of
the economy (p. 109).
Jackall argued that this change resulted in the
decline of the old middle class and the rise of “a
new middle class of salaried employees whose
chief common characteristic was, and is, their
dependence on the big organization” – in short,
the modern bureaucracy.
The ethic of the modern bureaucracy is very
different from the Protestant Ethic. Jackall said
the Protestant Ethic “was an ideology where a
person’s word was his bond and where the
integrity of the handshake was seen as crucial to
the maintenance of good business relationships”
(p. 125). Perhaps equally important in explaining
the shift is Jackall’s argument that the modern
bureaucratic organization separates “substance
from appearances, action from responsibility, and
language from meaning (p. 125).” By emphasizing appearances, actions, and language over
substance, responsibility, and meaning, the
modern bureaucracy separates the connection
between the meaning of work and salvation.
Finally, Jackall argued that because moral and
ethical choices are intimately tied to one’s
personal fate:
. . . bureaucracy erodes internal and even external
standards of morality, not only in matters of individual success and failure but also in all the issues
that managers face in their daily work. Bureaucracy
makes its own internal rules and social context the
principal moral gauges for action. Men and women
in bureaucracies turn to each other for moral cues
for behavior and come to fashion specific situational moralities for specific significant people in
their worlds (p. 125).
The result of the decline of the old Protestant
Ethic and the rise of the traditional bureaucratic
ethic is a new set of standards and behaviors.
These new standards result in communication
practices and patterns that produce the kind of
Communicating with Employees
results described above and consequently contributes to the general lack of confidence
employees have in their organizations and their
leaders.
Building on the analysis of the underlying
causes of the problems of information and credibility, the next section looks at the contribution of the classic organizations’ philosophy and
practices on communication.
The classic organization and
communication
This section of the paper is devoted to an
overview of the modern bureaucratic organization and its principles of communication. This
explanation serves as background to make the
case for the relationship between the organization’s ethical belief systems and its communication practices.
The historical roots and nature of the modern
organization
The historical model for modern work systems
originated with the ancient Greek and Roman
armies and was later adopted by religious organizations in the western world. The model was
well-defined in terms of the way people were
organized (structure) and in how it operated
(function). The fundamental structure was hierarchical and was coordinated through what the
military called a “chain-of-command.” The
ultimate formal or official power was at the top
of the organization and the power decreased and
span of control narrowed as one moved down the
levels of the hierarchy. A second structural characteristic was the assembly of specialties into
functional organizations. In the military, there
were foot soldiers, armor divisions, logistics, and
so forth. In industry, the functional divisions
include entities such as operations, maintenance,
finance, engineering, and human resources. The
hierarchical and functional organization of large
numbers of people provided the means to direct
and control military and, later, business systems
with maximum efficiency.
11
The classic organizational model included
assumptions about people, roles, and operating
procedures. These assumptions defined the
proper place for power, the principles of communication, the theory of motivation based on
a description of the nature of man, and were all
grounded in a fundamental principle of unquestioning obedience to the people in power.
The model of organizations developed and
refined in ancient military systems and the
churches of the western world was overlaid on
the emerging work systems of the Industrial
Revolution. The structure and tenets of the
bureaucratic organization combined with the
products of economic systems created the conditions for the emergence of a new morality and
ethic of work and work organizations. A model
based on planning, organizing, directing, and
controlling became the basis for modern management practices.
The classic organizational model does not, in
and of itself, account for the behavior of leaders
with regard to communication. One also has to
connect with the prior section on values and
ethics to understand how and why practices that
result in the kinds of organizations we see were
not merely accidents of nature, but rather
products of fundamental beliefs and assumptions.
Organizations and communication
One of the functional areas that evolved within
the organization is the communication system,
our topic here. The first section below summarizes the principles of communication that are
reflected in classic organizations followed by
communication practices that result from these
principles and from the use of a classic external
“public relations” model as means of conducting
internal communication.
The subsequent section analyzes the impact
of these values, perspectives, and practices on the
people in the organization. The findings lay the
groundwork for the final section in this paper.
Principles of communication
Bureaucratic organizations built on the classic
models evolved a set of principles to guide com-
12
Ellen F. Harshman and Carl L. Harshman
munication activities. The following are examples
of the historical guidelines for communication in
bureaucratic organizations:
• Communicate on a need-to-know basis; that
is, tell subordinates only what they need to
know in order to do their jobs.
• The more important the information, the
fewer the number of people entitled to
know it. This practice turns information
into organizational currency and this
currency translates into a form of power in
the organization.
• People are not interested in details or explanations. This assumption about employees
presumes that they are not interested in the
why of what is decided, only the what, and
then to a minimum degree. (It is an assumption about the nature of humans and their
needs.)
• Employees can’t handle the truth/bad news.
Again, we witness a paternal principle
which assumes either that leadership, must
“protect the vulnerable employee” or that
the sharing of bad news with the masses will
have deleterious effect on the organization.
• People will abuse important information.
This principle assumes that once given the
information, employees will misuse or abuse
it to the detriment of the organization.
These guiding principles for communication
set a tone of paternalism or patriarchy in the
organization reflected in the presumptions that
the top leadership knows what is best for the
people and will share that perception (in the
form of information, for example) as they see fit.
These principles and their resulting practices
surely contribute to the lack of information at
lower levels of the organization. Because the
assumptions may result in filtered or distorted
information, they also may contribute to the
credibility problems.
Communication practices
The principles outlined above lead to a series of
managerial practices with respect to communication in organizations. Here is a brief description of the ones that have the greatest negative
effect on employees:
• Limited information is given to employees. Since
subordinates only need limited information
in order to perform their jobs, limit the
amount of information they receive to
exactly what they need to perform their
stated functions.
Money is not to be “wasted” on communication
tools. Most organizations have some tools
in place (newsletters, bulletin boards, etc.).
There is a tendency for leadership to assume
that whatever is in place will suffice if only
they can get the right information in, or on,
the vehicles. To move beyond the present
means investing more resources in something that does not appear to “add value”
to the organization’s product or service.
• Communication tools are often misused.
Organizations use communication tools
inappropriately. For example, very expensive, multi-color newsletters often devote
extensive space to sporting events scores,
classified ads and stories about executives
who are thousands of miles away. Electronic
boards advertise holiday parties, but say
nothing about the performance of the
business.
• Communication lacks explanations and/or interpretations. At best there is a journalistic bent
to the communication process (who, what,
when, where . . .). This means that there is
little, if any, explanation of why certain
decisions were made or justifications for
actions. In the absence of credible explanations, employees are left with the responsibility and opportunity to create their own
explanations and justifications – often on
the basis of worst-case scenarios.
• Employees must hear only good news. The old
adage, “If you can’t say something good,
don’t say anything at all,” seems to apply.
Often, it seems, in an attempt to create
“good morale,” leaders will paint a picture
with communication that does not correlate with reality. It is impossible to know
whether these actions are a product of “not
wanting to upset the troops” or a need to
look good all the time, or a combination.
• There are no feedback loops. The fact is,
nobody is pushing for feedback loops. The
Communicating with Employees
people at the top who control communication and information systems think they
have effective, functioning feedback systems
(when they do not). People in the middle
and lower levels of these organizations do
not want to be in the feedback loops
because delivering bad news is too risky
(messengers are frequently “shot” in these
organizations).
The communication practices outlined above
evolved in part from the principles and practices
of classic organizations. But something more is
involved. There is a kind of “capitalism” in the
realm of information. It is hoarded at the top and
protected as though it were wealth. There is a
presumption of evil (or at best “no good will
come of this”) in the employees from whom
information is withheld. There is a kind of
manipulation of people implicit, if not explicit,
in always “painting a pretty picture.”
The examples of principles and practices
outlined above are the heart of communication
strategies in classic bureaucratic organizations.
The next section looks at the impact of these
principles and practices on the people in organizations.
The effects of traditional communication on
organizations and people
There is a great deal of research to document the
role of relationships in an organization and the
effectiveness of communication. Some of the
early work by Blake and Mouton (1968) revealed
that where management is effective and relationships are sound, there are fewer problems
with communication. The connection between
relationships and communication was noted by
Hall (1980) when he said: “Thus the quality of
relationships in an organization may dictate to a
great extent the level of communication effectiveness achieved, notwithstanding all the more
mechanical and obvious influences typically
involved” (p. 217).
If one buys the correlation between communication and relationships, what mediates the
two? Again, Hall provides a hypothesis:
13
The feelings people have about working where
they work or about the work they are doing or
about those with whom they work – feelings of
impotence, distrust, resentment, insecurity, social
inconsequence, and all the other very human
emotions of which everyone is capable – not only
define the climate which prevails but the manner
in which communications will be managed, as well
(p. 217).
We are comfortable in accepting the connection between relationships and communication.
The next question is which causes which? In an
organization that is not performing well or in
which there is a great deal of conflict, do poor
relationships account for the problems that exist
in communication or does the nature, content,
and delivery of communication in that organization contribute to the problems with relationships?
For whatever reason, from wanting to look
good, to covering all the bases, the leadership of
many organizations communicate content and
messages that definitely contribute to the difficulties. A communications consultant described
the demise of a large, regional hardware chain.
A manager who was deeply involved in trying
to save the business during the period of decline
of the business talked about communication and
its impacts: “Even before the end, though, communication was terrible. We were told that
everything was going to be fine. But, in fact,
unless you were an ostrich with your head buried
in the sand, you could see that you weren’t going
to be fine because we didn’t have a plan”
(Linkemer, 1997, p. 3).
The chain-of-command in organizations also
reflects communication pathology. Ackoff (1985)
said, “The pushing down of detail creates great
pressure on middle managers not only to transmit
good news but [also] to protect their corporations, their bosses, and themselves in the process.
They become the ‘point men’ of a given strategy
and the potential ‘fall guys’ when things go
wrong” (p. 112). When the employees understand a situation based on first-hand information
and experience and then realize that the leadership of the organization is saying just the
opposite, a tremendous credibility gap is created.
Whether leaders simply do not know the facts
14
Ellen F. Harshman and Carl L. Harshman
(best case) or want to paint a pretty picture so
that the employees do not get upset (naïve case)
or are trying to manipulate people into believing
something that is not true (ethics issue), the effect
in the workplace is the same. This credibility gap
ends up demotivating employees and detracting
from the very things the organization needs to
get back on track. In addition, because of past
experiences or a fundamental distrust of leadership, the employees most always assume that the
“false” information was a purposeful act on the
part of leaders.
The lack of safe, effective feedback loops is
another source of difficulty. Failing to create or
dismantling existing feedback loops cuts off leadership from the information it needs to understand both what is occurring in the organization
and the impacts of communication. Ackoff
(1985) said that, “Subordinates are reluctant to
relay upward messages that they believe their
superiors would rather not receive, or that reflect
negatively on the relayer. The bearer of bad
news, even if not its source, is often received
badly” (p. 26). Larson and King (1997) elaborate on the phenomenon when they note that,
“There is a natural tendency to suppress or alter
‘bad news’ or to exaggerate and circulate ‘good
news,’ affecting the reliability of the communication networks that managers rely on to make
decisions” (p. 51). Unfortunately, in these cases
top leaders receive feedback, but it is designed to
reinforce what they want to be true (or what
subordinates think leaders want to be true) rather
than to describe what is actually occurring. A
pattern of collusion that is a product of several
factors from culture, to training, to reward and
punishment systems emerges from these descriptions. Regardless of the other variables at work
in any given situation, human choice – the
decision to act in a certain way – underlies all
those factors. So when upper or middle managers
purposefully distort information to avoid
problems or please bosses, they have made an
ethical choice that has implications far beyond
themselves.
The resulting ineffective communication
patterns and processes contribute to a debilitating
cynicism in the organization. The bureaucratic
ethic is clear in Jackall’s (1992) analysis. He says
that it appears that the higher one goes in the
corporate world, the more advancement beyond
the upper middle level “depends greatly on one’s
ability to manipulate a variety of symbols without
becoming tied to, or identified with, any of
them” (p. 122). One of the employees who
provided input to Jackall’s thesis said the following:
I get faked out all the time and I’m part of the
system. I come from a very different culture.
Where I come from, if you give someone your
word, no one ever questions it. It’s the old hardwork-will-lead-to-success ideology. Small community, Protestant, agrarian, small business,
merchant-type values. I am disadvantaged in a
system like this . . . It’s the ability to play this
system that determines whether you will rise . . .
It’s characterizing the reality of a situation with any
description that is necessary to make that situation
more palatable to some group that matters. It
means that you have to come up with a culturally
accepted verbalization to explain why you are not
doing what you are doing . . . [Or] you say that
we had to do what we did because it was
inevitable; or because the guys at the [regulatory]
agencies were dumb; [you] say we won when we
really lost; [you] say we saved money when we
squandered it; [you] say something’s safe when it’s
potentially or actually dangerous . . . This is the
game (pp. 122–123).
This employee’s observations are one way to
summarize the situation related to ethics and
communication in organizations. Although such
practices may now be accepted in modern organizations, they are surely not without their price.
The price of such actions (and their underlying
values) is extracted in the performance of the
organization and in the creation of a culture in
which the members of the organization live daily
with the assumption that the leaders have no
credibility and cannot be trusted to tell the truth
or to communicate with the best interests of the
business and the people in mind.
Although some employees choose to ignore
the issues and go on, two other possibilities for
action exist. One option is to withdraw.
Withdrawal is likely to result in a loss of loyalty,
commitment, and the other human elements that
provide the glue to the social system of a
Communicating with Employees
business. The other option is rebellion. This
option appeals to some employees who live by
the eye-for-an-eye principle. The result is often
a form of “double jeopardy” for the organization
which loses at the front end by alienating motivated employees and at the back end by driving
employees to a tit-for-tat relationship with regard
to their feelings about leadership and others.
Even though it is clearly not the only variable
in the formula, it becomes increasingly clear that
the values and ethics of the people who lead and
work in an organization are major factors in
how they behave in their respective roles.
Further, there is considerable evidence that the
combination of the classic organization model,
the principles of communication adopted from
this model and the practices of external public
relations combine under an umbrella of values
and ethics to determine how one communicates
within an organization.
The next section of the paper is devoted to
some organizational alternatives to the classic
model of communicating.
Building trust and credibility through
communication
The data and recommendations for ongoing,
successful organizations point to certain characteristics as essential to their success. Through the
literature and experience, we have found that
modern, high performance, successful organizations tend to reflect the following:
• They have a clear vision for the future and
are goal-oriented.
• They have high involvement of employees
in the conduct of the business.
• They have high commitment of employees
to the business.
• They have embedded reward systems that
are connected to the performance of the
business.
• Those in charge tend to lead rather than
manage.
• The organization and its members are
adaptive and oriented to learning.
• They have effective communications
15
processes that are open, two-way, and
credible.
If we accept the premise that communication in an
organization is both a contributor to, and reflection of,
the overall culture and character of the organization,
the question becomes: “What are the essential
principles and practices of communication to
create the kind of organization described above?”
The underlying values
The bridge between the characteristics in the
prior section and the principles and practices that
follow are the values that serve as the foundation for the organization and the behavior of
individuals in it. More and more, organizations
are creating values statements as part of the
foundation on which the organization operates.
These values are guidelines for day-to-day
behavior of leaders and followers. This is a major
step beyond the annual ethics letter the purchasing department sent to vendors a month
before Christmas. It is a substantive attempt to
identify the key values that will support the
creation of an organization that performs well,
sustains itself, and creates a positive environment
for its employees.
What kinds of values statements are included?
One small manufacturing plant recently held a
meeting of a representative group of employees
to talk about inventing the future. In the session,
they worked on a set of values or guiding principles for the future. Here is a sample of the high
priority items from their list of proposed organizational values:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trust one another.
Treat each other with respect.
Recognize the value of each individual.
Keep your word; do what you say you will
do.
Tell the truth; be honest with others.
Act with integrity.
Be open to change.
Risk failing in order to get better.
Learn; try new ideas.
It seems that a number of these values, if applied
16
Ellen F. Harshman and Carl L. Harshman
to organizational communication, would set a
tone and direction different than reflected in the
data cited earlier in this paper. With these values
as a backdrop, we move to a description of communication principles and practices that are
designed to reflect trust, openness, honesty, and
credibility.
The role of communication
The starting point for building communication
processes is to understand the role of communication in the successful organization. We contend
that the following are the key roles of any
internal communication process:
• To inform and explain;
• To educate about the business and the
environment of the business;
• To reinforce credibility, openness, and trust;
• To support organizational themes and
messages;
• To fill employees’ needs to predict, understand, and control their environment;
• To impact positively the attitudes of
employees.
This list defines the role of communication much
more broadly than does the classic information
or public affairs model. This role places communication clearly at the heart of how the
organization conducts its business and, more
importantly, makes values and intangibles such
as trust keys to effective communication.
Principles of communication
The starting point for developing internal organizational communication processes that build
trust and credibility is to establish a set of
working principles (or assumptions) as the foundation. Here are some examples of such principles that would guide communication in an
organization trying to operate on the basis of
trust and credibility:
• It is essential that all employees understand
the business.
• Communicating the rationale for, and
details of, strategies, decisions, and actions
is vital.
• Immediate, general dissemination of critical
information is needed.
• Communicate on a Right-to-Know rather
than a Need-to-Know basis.
• The more important the information, the
more (rather than less) people we tell.
• Negative information is used to improve the
organization, not to punish people.
• Always say what you actually did and do
what you say you will do.
• If you cannot tell employees something, at
least tell them why you cannot tell them.
Working from a set of principles such as these
provides a solid foundation for creating communication systems and processes that will contribute to building credibility and trust in the
organization.
Characteristics of communication
The characteristics of effective communication
provide a set of criteria from which an organization can design and evaluate communication
systems. Communication that will help build
credibility and trust has the following characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Two-way (for exchange and feedback);
Relevant to employees’ needs;
Understandable;
Believable;
Useful;
Timely; and
Mature (does not “talk down” to
employees).
In a context of openness and trust, these characteristics allow the organization to build
powerful, ethical communication processes that
mirror the stated values. The characteristics are
not like items on the supermarket shelf such that
one can pick and choose which to implement.
They are tied together. Having communication
that is understandable, credible, and useful
requires that the organization also have commu-
Communicating with Employees
nication systems that provide for two-way, open,
and honest information exchanges so that
feedback is available from employees to tell if,
in fact, the communication systems reflect the
other characteristics.
Ethical communication practices: the seven C’s of
effective communication
The following represent the critical practices in
a communication system that will contribute to
credibility and trust in the organization:
1. The communication is central to the
business and the performance of the
business. It does not focus on topics and
issues at the fringe (e.g., bowling scores,
classified ads).
2. Communication comes out regularly rather
than on an intermittent basis.
3. Communication is congruent with actions.
It does not send mixed signals to
employees.
4. Communication activities and content are
coordinated; that is, they fit together versus
being a random pattern of disbursing information.
5. Communication is courageous rather than
being seen as timid and safe.
6. Communication is collaborative. It is done
in conjunction with employees rather than
being controlled by top leaders independently of the employees or as something
done “to” employees.
7. Communication is seen as credible by stakeholders rather than viewed as self-serving
to the needs of the owners and/or the
people at the top of the organization.
Building a communication system around
these principles and their allied practices is the
key to building positive relationships with
employees. Further, communication systems
based on these principles and practices will help
ensure that the communication process contributes to, rather than detracts from, the ultimate
success of the organization.
17
Putting it all together
Translating the role, principles, characteristics and
practices into action is a major undertaking.
Perhaps both the discomfort of change and the
magnitude of the task combine to discourage
organizations from pursuing this alternative. The
following outline some of the credible communication practices in high performance organizations.
1. Create a communication planning and delivery
process that is collaborative with employees. This
will help ensure that the communication
process is relevant to the needs of the “consumers.” This must be a genuine effort.
Token involvement will end up reinforcing
old messages to the workforce.
2. Create a communication oversight committee that
includes employees and that has authority to
identify issues and create communication
processes. This will help ensure that communication has integrity in design and
delivery. Such a committee has to exist
independent of the organization’s formal
communication entity. The separation is
essential because the roles are significantly
different. Communication departments are
“maintenance” subsystems in organizational
language. The Communication Oversight
Committee is an “adaptive” subsystem, one
that is trying to guide change. Second, they
must be separate (although linked through
professional communication staff involvement) because there are “turf ” issues that
arise. These issues are part of change and
have to be worked through. If this communication process is tied to the formal
communication arm of the organization,
the issues often never get to the table.
3. Do a communication audit. Understanding
where you are is the first step in getting to
where you want to be. First of all, the audit
creates a baseline against which you can
measure change over time. Second, it
provides a tool for planning. From the
audit, the communication oversight committee can get a clear picture of strengths
and weaknesses, pockets of problems,
18
Ellen F. Harshman and Carl L. Harshman
employees’ needs, and so forth. Finally, the
audit will provide the data for discussion
with leaders about the discrepancies in how
various levels and constituencies perceive
communication in the organization.
4. Be clear about the values, principles, and practices that are the foundation of the communication process. Putting them down on paper
and committing to live up to them go a
long way toward making it a reality. The
first place to use stated values is in the
creation of a communication plan. Then
they are useful day-to-day is checking
actions against commitments. Being very
public about the values and reinforcing the
existence of an open, honest, two-way
communication system will encourage
employees to give leadership feedback
when they think leaders are straying from
the values path.
5. Create a communication plan and process to
support the stated values. If the organization
stops with the statement of values and goes
no further, it is highly likely that there will
be no substantive change in the communication. An important role of the
Communication Oversight Committee is
to develop the initial plan and to get the
plan approved by the leadership. Then, the
Committee is responsible for overseeing
the implementation of the plan and for
monitoring the effectiveness of the plan in
achieving stated goals and in living up to
the stated values.
6. Be willing to learn. Creating new, open,
two-way communication processes is
anxiety-producing for leadership. This is
where courage is required. Understand that
the organization will not be able to “get it
right” the first time. There will be a
learning curve to high performance. If,
however, leadership is willing to take the
risk and if the communication process
keeps employees informed of the successes
and setbacks, there will develop a climate
that is both tolerant and supportive of the
learning.
Fortunately, there are an increasing number of
organizations that are building communication
processes on the principles and practices outlined
above. As these organizations move forward into
the next millennium, we shall have some field
experiments of communication aimed at building
trust and credibility.
Conclusion
We began this paper with the premises that effective communication is essential to the successful
organization and that principled communication
processes are key to that success. Research and
case studies support the fact that much of the
communication in today’s bureaucratic organizations does the opposite of what is intended;
that is, it contributes to a growing sense of
mistrust and an erosion of credibility (and faith)
in the organization and its leadership. Mistrust
and a lack of credibility are part of a pattern in
organizations that results in morale, commitment,
and, ultimately, performance problems. As a
result, employees in these organizations often
view leaders as lacking credibility and, consequently, in lacking integrity. Leadership viewed
in this manner is rarely as effective as it needs to
be and the employees in these kinds of organizations typically do not perform at near the level
of their potential.
The roots of the problem with communication are a result of the combined effects of the
characteristics and principles of the classic
bureaucratic organization, the use of traditional
external public relations approaches on internal
organizational audiences, and the shift in values
from those evident in the era of the Protestant
Ethic. The command-and-control model of
management combined with the ethics of the
modern bureaucracy result in communication
processes and practices that contribute to
employee mistrust of the organization and to the
erosion of the credibility of its leaders. These
conditions, in turn, negatively affect the performance of the organization.
The final section of the paper focuses on the
foundations for an alternative communication
process based on a different set of values and
principles. If we assume that organizational com-
Communicating with Employees
munication is both a contributor to, and reflection of,
the character and culture of the organization, then
changing communication involves to some extent
altering the culture. It is essential that communication processes be designed and carried out
on the basis of a set of organizational values
which include trust, openness, honesty, two-way
information exchanges, respect for employees,
and the absolute necessity of integrity in the
communication process. From there we outline
a series of roles, principles, characteristics, and
practices that will contribute to building an organization in which the employees trust the leadership and in which the communication process
has credibility.
There are no “magic pills” to create different
kinds of communication processes. Even more
challenging is the fact that there are few places
in which one can learn how to create the kinds
of communication systems described here or in
which to view them in place. These communication processes represent one of our major challenges for the next decade. How well we do will
be reflected in the minds and hearts of the people
who work in these organizations.
Note
1
In all the cases cited here, the written survey was
offered to all employees who completed it on a voluntary basis. All surveys were sent directly to an
external party who analyzed the data and reported
results in writing to the organization.
References
Ackoff, R. L.: 1985, ‘Participation Within
Organizations’, Wharton Alumni Magazine
(Summer), 112.
Autry, J. A.: 1991, Love and Profit: The Art of Caring
Leadership (William Morrow and Company, Inc.,
New York).
Blake, R. R. and J. S. Mouton: 1968, Corporate
Excellence Through Grid Organization Development
(Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas).
Brown, J. D.: 1973, The Human Nature of Organizations
(American Management Association, New York).
19
Davis, K.: 1961, ‘Understand What You Hear’,
Nation’s Business 49, 10.
De Greene, K. B.: 1982, The Adaptive Organization:
Anticipation and Management of Crisis ( John Wiley
& Sons, New York).
Hall, J.: 1980, ‘Interpersonal Style and Corporate
Climate: Communication Revisited’, in J. A.
Shotgren (ed.), Models for Management: The Structure
of Competence (Teleometrics International,
Woodlands, Texas), pp. 216–236.
Jackall, R.: 1992, ‘Moral Mazes: Bureaucracy and
Managerial Work’, in P. J. Frost, V. Mitchell and
W. R. Nord (eds.), Organizational Reality: Reports
from the Firing Line (HarperCollins Publishers, New
York), pp. 108–125.
Larson, E. W. and J. B. King: 1996, ‘The Systemic
Distortion of Information’, Organizational Dynamics
(Winter), 49–60.
Levinas, E.: 1979, Totality and Infinity, An Essay on
Exteriority, translated by Alphonso Lingis (Martinus
Nijhoff, The Hague, Boston, London), pp. 35–40,
100–101, 199–201.
Linkemer, B.: 1997, The Broken Covenant: No More
Security, Lots More Anxiety (Unpublished document,
St. Louis, Missouri), p. 7.
Selznick, P.: 1957, Leadership in Administration: A
Sociological Interpretation (Row, Peterson, Evanston,
IL).
Slater, P. E. and W. E. Bennis: 1964, ‘Democracy is
Inevitable’, Harvard Business Review (March-April),
305.
Weber, M.: 1958, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, translated by Talcott Parsons (Charles
Scribner’s Sons, New York), p. 172.
White, D. H.: 1982, Contemporary Perspectives in
Organizational Behavior (Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
Boston).
Wilkins, A. L.: 1989, Developing Corporate Character
( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Ellen F. Harshman
Saint Louis University,
School of Business & Administration,
3674 Lindell Boulevard,
St. Louis, Missouri 63108.
Carl L. Harshman
Carl L. Harshman & Associates, Inc.,
6361 Clayton Road,
St. Louis, Missouri 63117.
Using vision to improve organisational communication
Kelly, Dawn
Leadership & Organization Development Journal; 2000; 21, 1/2; ProQuest Central
pg. 92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm
Rethinking internal
communication: a stakeholder
approach
Mary Welch
Division of Applied Communication, Lancashire Business School,
University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK, and
Paul R. Jackson
Rethinking
internal
communication
177
Received July 2005
Revised August 2006,
January 2007
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Effective internal communication is crucial for successful organisations as it affects the
ability of strategic managers to engage employees and achieve objectives. This paper aims to help
organisations improve internal communication by proposing theory with the potential to improve
practice.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper identifies gaps in the academic literature and
addresses calls for discussion and definition of internal communication, for theory on its mandates,
scope and focus and to counteract the tendency to treat employees as a uni-dimensional “single
public”. To address these gaps, internal communication is defined and positioned within the corporate
communication school of thought.
Findings – The paper proposes an Internal Communication Matrix which could be used to
supplement other forms of internal situational analysis and as an analytical tool which may be applied
to the strategic analysis, planning and evaluation of internal communication.
Practical implications – Strategic communication practitioners are offered a fresh perspective
from which to consider internal communication. The Internal Communication Matrix proposed here
could be used to supplement other forms of internal situational analysis and as an analytical tool
which may be applied to the strategic analysis, planning and evaluation of internal communication.
The internal corporate communication concept offers a lens through which communicators can
consider communication strategy and tactics.
Originality/value – This paper’s theoretical contribution is significant as it addresses gaps in the
literature on internal communication. It does this by conceptualising a multidimensional stakeholder
approach summarised in the Internal Communication Matrix. This approach is significant since it
broadens previous approaches. The paper introduces the concept of internal corporate communication
and argues that it should be a key focus for corporate communication theory and practice as it
concerns all employees.
Keywords Communication, Stakeholder analysis, Corporate communications, Public relations,
Employee relations
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Practitioners see internal communication as an important, challenging area (Robertson,
2004, p. 17; FitzPatrick, 2004, p. 19) which affects the ability of organisations to engage
employees (Kress, 2005, p. 30), and business writers see it as a core process for
organisations (Quirke, 2000, p. 21):
Corporate Communications: An
International Journal
Vol. 12 No. 2, 2007
pp. 177-198
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1356-3289
DOI 10.1108/13563280710744847
CCIJ
12,2
178
In the information age an organization’s assets include the knowledge and interrelationships
of its people. Its business is to take the input of information, using the creative and intellectual
assets of its people to process it in order to produce value. Internal communication is the core
process by which business can create this value (Quirke, 2000, p. 21).
Internal communication happens constantly within organisations and includes
informal chat on the “grapevine” as well as managed communication. This paper looks
at managed communication and attempts to develop theory to assist in the
management of internal communication. Despite its importance to practice, there are
considerable gaps in internal communication theory and theorists have called for
research on its mandates, scope and focus (Forman and Argenti, 2005, p. 257). Poor
internal communication is a major concern for organisations since it results in
workplace inefficiency (Profile, 2006, p. 4). To offer strategic communication managers
a fresh perspective from which to consider internal communication management, this
paper will discuss gaps in the literature, review the few existing definitions and offer a
fresh approach.
Scholarship emphasises the need to be aware of alternative keywords associated
with a research area (Hart, 1998, p. 6, 2001, p. 23). The term internal communication is
used throughout this paper because it is preferred by corporate communication
theorists (Van Riel, 1995, p. 13; Forman and Argenti, 2005)[1]. However, alternatives
are used in the literature, sometimes interchangeably, including: internal relations
(Grunig and Hunt, 1984, p. 240) employee communication (Argenti, 1996, p. 94; Smidts
et al., 2001, p. 1051) internal communications (Cornelissen, 2004, p. 189) employee
relations (Grunig and Hunt, 1984, p. 240; Argenti, 1996, p. 94; Quirke, 2000, p. 198)
internal public relations (Jefkins, 1988, p. 287; Wright, 1995, p. 182) and staff
communication (Stone, 1995, p. 115).
Grunig et al. (1992, p. 557) provide a review of internal communication research and
conclude: “In spite of all of this research, however, we emerge from this section with
little theoretical understanding of how internal communication makes organizations
more effective.” While they propose symmetrical communication as a way to improve
effectiveness and achieve excellence, gaps in the literature on internal communication
continue to be highlighted. Argenti (1996. p. 94) argues: “. . . no other corporate
communication subfunction offers more of an opportunity for genuinely sought-after
research than employee communication.” Similarly, management scholars Smidts et al.
(2001, p. 1051) suggest that internal communication is a “rather neglected”
management instrument and Kitchen and Daly (2002, p. 49) call for definition and
discussion of internal communication. In a recent text on public relations, Yeomans
(2006, p. 337) observes that: “Very little attention is paid to internal communication by
public relations scholars yet it is viewed as part of an organisation’s strategic
communication function.”
Given the need for definition and discussion of internal communication established
above, existing definitions will be discussed next. Argenti (1996, p. 94) refers to a
paucity of definitions of internal communication and notes that literature reviewers
“turn up the same few articles over and over again.” Since, there are few definitions it is
not surprising that over the past decade or so, a number of writers have cited the same
passage from Frank and Brownell (1989) as a definition of internal communication
(Van Riel, 1995, p. 13; Smidts et al., 2001, p. 1052; Dolphin, 2005, p. 172). The passage
these authors cite as a definition of internal or employee communication reads:
“the communications transactions between individuals and/or groups at various levels
and in different areas of specialisation that are intended to design and redesign
organisations, to implement designs, and to co-ordinate day-to-day activities” (Frank
and Brownell, 1989, pp. 5-6). Van Riel refers to this definition to describe internal
communication as an element of organisational communication, within his model of
overall integrated corporate communication, shown in Figure 1. Likewise, Dolphin
(2005, p. 172) refers to the definition and explores internal communication in the
context of the corporate communication function. Smidts et al. (2001, p. 1053) interpret
it as employee communication and apply it to their consideration of employee
communication with supervisors and colleagues.
However, the Frank and Brownell (1989) definition used by these three sources
actually refers to organisational communication as a field of study and practice, not
internal communication or employee communication as a part of integrated corporate
communication. However, as noted above, their definition continues to be used as a
definition of “internal communication”. An unhelpful “continuous loop” seems to have
occurred here with writers starved of alternatives referring to a dated and transactional
definition of organisational communication to define internal communication. Thus, a
number of theoretical questions ensue. Is Frank and Brownell’s (1989) definition of
organisational communication appropriate for internal communication today? Are
internal communication and organisational communication simply the same thing? If
they are different, how might “internal communication” be defined, where might it be
positioned, who might be involved and what might be its purpose? To address these
questions, it is necessary to:
Rethinking
internal
communication
179
Strategy
Identity
Image
Common starting points
Management
communication
Organisational
communication
Marketing
communication
Public relations, Public affairs, Environmental , Investor relations,
Labour market, Corporate advertising, Internal communication
Figure 1.
Internal communication
positioned within van
Riel’s (1995) integrated
corporate communication
model
CCIJ
12,2
.
.
.
180
map understanding of the fields of organisational communication and corporate
communication to position internal communication within a field of study;
critically review definitions to consider the nature, scope, focus and goals of
internal communication; and
identify internal communication stakeholders.
A better understanding of these issues is vital if theorists hope to assist practitioners to
improve internal communication and contribute to improved employee engagement
and workplace efficiency.
Positioning internal communication
The organisational communication field of study looks at communication and
organisational behaviour and is described in various ways. It is concerned with the
symbolic use of language, how organisations function, and what their goals are
(Mumby and Stohl, 1996, pp. 53-4). The discipline of organisational communication
focuses on the context of organisations and their communication processes (Miller,
1999, p. 1). It can be seen as both “a way to describe and explain organisations” and an
approach to “communication as a phenomenon” in organisations (Deetz, 2001, p. 5).
Organisational communication scholars argue that all communication is part of an
integrated whole. On the one hand, Cheney and Christensen (2001, p. 231) argue that
internal and external communication no longer exist as separate fields since they have
been superseded by the notion of fuzzy organisational boundaries. On the other hand,
they use the term “external organizational communication” for clarity and then go on
to define it as “public relations, marketing and issues management”. They define
internal communication as “employee relations, statements of mission and
organizational development” (Cheney and Christensen, 2001, p. 231). These authors
give a strong caution against the use of the internal/external communication labels
without the benefit of reflection on the linkages between them and the resultant fuzzy
organisational boundaries. This is useful as it reminds managers and theorists that
internal communication becomes external as soon as the e-mail is forwarded to the
media or the newsletter is taken home. Likewise, the CEO’s performance on local TV
may be viewed by external and internal stakeholders. Furthermore, individuals may
have dual stakeholder roles of, for example, internal employee and external
shareholder and/or customer.
So, the field of organisational communication is concerned with communication as a
phenomenon. Additionally, in the years since 1989, understanding of the field of
organisational communication has shifted to one of integrated external and internal
communication with blurred boundaries between the two (Cheney and Christensen,
2001, p. 231). While there is recognition that internal communication has an identity, it
is seen as being integrated with external communication. Given this, Frank and
Brownell’s (1989) definition of organisational communication (as a whole) cannot be
appropriate for internal communication (as part of the whole). Therefore, the unhelpful
continuous loop identified earlier needs to be addressed.
Corporate communication theorists also classify communication elements, including
internal communication, while simultaneously recognizing that these form part of an
integrated whole (Van Riel, 1995, p. 13; Argenti, 1996, p. 94; and see Varey, 2002,
pp. 129-33 for an account of the development of the corporate communication school
of thought). However, there are differences in views of the concept within this school of
thought. Argenti (1996, p. 77) sees corporate communication as a development of
strategic corporate public relations concerned with: “image and identity, corporate
advertising, media relations, financial communications, employee relations, community
relations and corporate philanthropy, government relations and crisis
communications.” This differs from van Riel’s (1995, p. 26) view (Figure 1) since he
defines the field of corporate communication as:
. . . an instrument of management by means of which all consciously used forms of
internal and external communication are harmonised as effectively and efficiently as
possible, so as to create a favourable basis for relationships with groups upon which the
company is dependant.
Van Riel’s (1995, p. 13) approach describes the common starting points for
communications activity as strategy, image and identity and identifies three types of
corporate communication: management, organisational and marketing. In this view,
management communication relates to communication concerning access to resources,
including human resources. Marketing communication is described as advertising,
direct mail, personal selling and sponsorship. Significantly, van Reil does not include
public relations in “marketing communications” as marketing scholars are apt to do
(Fill, 1999). Internal communication is seen as one of seven facets of organisational
communication along with public relations, public affairs, environmental
communication, investor relations, labour market communications (recruitment) and
corporate advertising. These facets could arguably be better termed strategic public
relations with the “public relations” facet changed to media relations, to distinguish it
from the organisational communication school’s perspective outlined above.
This review of the fields of study results in a perspective on organisational
communication as concerned with communication in the abstract as a communication
phenomenon, while corporate communication is seen as being concerned with
communication as an instrument of management. This paper is aligned with the latter
perspective as it is motivated (Lewin, 1945, p. 129) by a concern to contribute theory
which may be of practical use. So, this paper sees internal communication positioned
within the strategic public relations (adapted from van Riel) element of corporate
communication. This adaptation is included in Figure 2 which shows van Riel’s (1995)
model, overlaid with a trapezoid indicating Argenti’s (1996) view. Both these authors
position internal communication as an element of strategic public relations. The
problem with this view is that internal communication occurs in management and
marketing communication areas of the model as well as the strategic public relations
area. This suggests an apparent inconsistency with the model. To resolve this, the
nature of internal communication will be considered next. Definitions will be
considered, a new approach offered, and internal corporate communication will be
proposed as a way to conceptualise the internal communication aspect of strategic
public relations (“ICC” in Figure 2).
Review of definitions
To consider the nature of internal communication, existing definitions of the term will be
reviewed. Scholes (1997, p. xviii) takes a stakeholder perspective (for a review of
literature on the stakeholder concept see Cornelissen, 2004, pp. 56-92) and defines
Rethinking
internal
communication
181
CCIJ
12,2
Strategy
Identity
Image
182
Common starting points
Figure 2.
Van Riel’s (1995)
integrated corporate
communication model
( *adaptations) with a
trapezoid overlay
indicating Argenti’s (1996)
view of corporate
communication
Management
communication
Strategic
public relations*
Marketing
communication
ICC*
internal communication as: “The professional management of interactions between all
those with an interest or ‘a stake’ in a particular organisation.” This is useful because it
suggests a strategic approach and focuses on the participants or stakeholders in internal
communication. Unfortunately, Scholes’s definition does not distinguish between
different types of interests or stakes. Additionally, the phrase all of those could equally
be applied to external as well as internal stakeholders. Nevertheless, Scholes’s notion of
internal communication as a professional process is useful since it signals the role of
internal communication in the strategic management of organisations. Additionally, the
focus on interactions in Scholes’s definition is useful. However, since the outcome of
interaction is relationship, it is necessary to include the term relationship in any
definition of internal communication. This is supported by van Riel’s viewpoint referred
to above as it emphasises the relationship management role of internal communication.
Cheney and Christensen’s (2001) definition, mentioned above, relates to employee
relations, mission statements and organisational development. These suggest three
levels of internal communication: day-to-day management (employee relations),
strategic (mission) and project management (organisational development). Likewise,
Kalla (2005, p. 304) highlights the multi-disciplinary interest in internal communication
and defines “integrated internal communications” as “all formal and informal
communication taking place internally at all levels of an organisation.” Kalla sees the
concept as drawing from the four broad communications domains outlined and
debated in a special edition of Management Communication Quarterly (Miller, 1996,
pp. 3-4): business communication (Reinsch, 1996), management communication
(Smeltzer, 1996), corporate communication (Argenti, 1996) and organisational
communication (Mumby and Stohl, 1996).
Cornelissen’s (2004, p. 189) glossary definition of internal communications takes a
simple tactical perspective, focusing on methods: “all methods (internal newsletter,
intranet) used by a firm to communicate with its employees.” This focus on tactics
lacks a sense of internal communication as part of strategic management. However, it
does highlight the need to consider the media and by implication, message content
involved in internal communication.
Drawing from the above discussion, an initial definition can be constructed. Internal
communication is understood here as the strategic management of interactions and
relationships between stakeholders at all levels within organisations. On the one hand,
this definition is a useful contribution and an attempt to address gaps in the literature,
including previous definitions with a transactional focus. On the other hand, it does not
go far enough. Recent calls for further research on internal communication include an
appeal to consider its “mandates and scope . . . [and] whether companies can focus on
all employees” (Forman and Argenti, 2005, p. 262). Gaps in theory are highlighted by
criticism directed at public relations writing on internal communication because
“employees are too often treated as a single public” (L’Etang, 2005, p. 522). This paper
responds to these calls by broadening the definition begun at the start of this
paragraph. It does this by offering an approach to internal communication which
differentiates stakeholder groups while simultaneously providing a means to focus on
all employees. Thus, it provides a stakeholder approach to internal communication and
the next section develops this approach.
A stakeholder approach to internal communication
If internal communication is the strategic management of interactions and
relationships between stakeholders at all levels within organisations, these
stakeholders need to be identified. This may seem an obvious step and it has been
suggested in the past (Bernstein, 1984, p. 97) but L’Etang (2005, p. 522) criticises the
continuing tendency for internal communication writers to treat employees as a single
entity. L’Etang uses the term public, but stakeholder is preferred here as it reflects
Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder approach (see Grunig and Repper, 1992, p. 125; Cozier
and Witmer, 2001, p. 617 for discussion of the terms stakeholders and publics).
Freeman’s (1984, p. 25) stakeholder approach defines stakeholders as: “any group or
individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives.”
Freeman (1984, p. 216) struggled with the use of the term internal stakeholder. He
initially rejected its use because he felt it was opposed to his externally focused
stakeholder approach to strategic management. The stakeholder approach calls for
organisations to become more responsive to forces in their external environment by
engaging in situational analysis and widening their understanding of their external
stakeholders. Freeman (1984, pp. 216-19) notes that he eventually accepted the
legitimacy of the term internal stakeholder after research with managers demonstrated
that they identified with the concept of internal stakeholder groups. In a cautionary
note, Freeman (1984, p. 218) emphasises the need for organisations to keep an external
focus: “internal stakeholders must be seen as the conduit through which managers
reach other external stakeholders.” Freeman’s research identified a range of internal
stakeholders including line management (boss and boss’s boss), team members, and
other internal groups (related departments, subsidiary managers). In later work,
Freeman (1999, p. 233) calls for more theory on: “different but useful ways to
understand organizations in stakeholder terms” and endorses Jones’s (1995, p. 408)
work on instrumental stakeholder theory which identifies employee stakeholder
groups and subgroups. The stakeholder approach emphasises ethical management
Rethinking
internal
communication
183
CCIJ
12,2
184
behaviours (Jones, 1995, p. 420; Freeman, 1999, p. 234). Moreover, ethical business
practices such as the Potter Box approach (McElreath, 1996; Parsons, 2004) emphasise
the need to identify and prioritise stakeholders.
Differentiating internal stakeholder groups could be approached from a number of
directions such as segmentation by demographics or by occupational classification
systems (e.g. the UK Standard Occupation Classification system available at: www.
statistics.gov.uk). Organisations in different sectors will have different employee
groupings depending on their particular purpose. For example, in UK higher education
the following staff groupings are commonly identified: manual and ancillary, academic
support, administrative, academic, and research. Alternatively, structural levels could
be used to identify broad organisation stakeholder groups echoing the levels derived
from Cheney and Christensen’s (2001) work mentioned earlier. The levels are: strategic
management, day-to-day management, team and project management. Stakeholder
theory encourages managers to consider different groups with different stakes in an
organisation. Applying this to internal communication results in the identification of
participants representing different stakeholder groups at different levels in
organisations:
.
all employees;
.
strategic management: the…