why leadership matters to internal communication: linking ......public relations practitioners. meng...

Why Leadership Matters to Internal Communication:Linking Transformational Leadership, Symmetrical

Communication, and Employee Outcomes

Linjuan Rita Men

Communication Studies, Southern Methodist University

This study examines how organizational leadership influences excellent internal communication by

building the linkage between transformational leadership, symmetrical communication, and emplo-

yee attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The results showed that transformational leadership

positively influences the organization’s symmetrical communication system and employee–

organization relationships. The effects of transformational leadership on employee relational

outcomes are partially mediated by symmetrical internal communication. Symmetrical communi-

cation demonstrates large positive effect on the quality of employee–organization relationships,

which in turn leads to employee advocacy. Effects of symmetrical internal communication on

employee advocacy are fully mediated by employee–organization relationships. Significant

theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Internal communication, sometimes called employee communication (Kennan & Hazleton,

2006; Kreps, 1989), as a subarea of public relations, has been recognized as the foundation

of modern organizations. Deetz (2001) defined internal communication as a way to describe

and explain organizations. Internal communication is a central process by which employees

share information, create relationships, make meaning, and construct organizational culture

and values (Berger, 2008). Berger asserted that internal communication is one of the most

dominant and important activities in organizations because it ‘‘helps individuals and groups

coordinate activities to achieve goals, and [is] vital in socialization, decision-making, problem-

solving, and change-management processes’’ (p. 2).

A growing body of evidence has demonstrated that effective internal communication plays a

vital role in developing positive employee attitudes, such as job satisfaction (Gray & Laidlaw,

2004), identification with the organization (Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001), trust and organiza-

tional commitment (Jo & Shim, 2005), and positive employee–organization relationships. These

attitudes, in turn, increase productivity, improve performance, and enhance external relations

(Berger, 2008). In this increasingly connected digital world, employees possess numerous

tools to initiate conversations about the company in the public domain. Quality employee–

organization relationships and positive employee communication behavior (J. Kim & Rhee,

2011) are critical factors that affect an organization’s intangible assets, such as reputation and

Correspondence should be sent to Dr. Linjuan Rita Men, Ph.D., Southern Methodist University, Communication

Studies, 6550 Shady Brook Lane, Dallas, TX 75206. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Public Relations Research, 26: 256–279, 2014

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1062-726X print/1532-754X online

DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2014.908719

stakeholder relations. Thus, the influence of employees as invaluable communication assets in

the organization and the function of internal communication in generating positive employee

outcomes have received increasing attention from public relations scholars and professionals.

Dozier, L. A. Grunig, and J. E. Grunig. (1995) and L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, and Dozier

(2002) suggested that a participative organizational culture, an organic structure, power sym-

metry, and gender equality, are the key factors that facilitate the organization’s internal

communication. Presumably, all these organizational contextual factors are connected to one

concept, organizational leadership. Yukl (2006) defined leadership as the process of influencing

followers. Leadership at different organizational levels directly or indirectly determines structur-

al forms, organizational culture and climate, power distribution, and communication. Different

types of leadership advocate different communication styles to influence followers, and thus

constitute a major component of the internal communication system (Whitworth, 2011).

Management competence and leadership behavior also drive communication outcomes, such

as perceived organizational reputation and quality relationships (Dowling, 2004; Men, 2011b).

However, despite the innate connection between leadership and communication, few empirical

studies have examined the exact influence of organizational leadership as a contextual factor on

internal communication in organizations.

The limited studies on leadership in public relations have primarily focused on examining the

leadership styles and traits preferred by public relations leaders (e.g., Aldoory & Toth, 2004; Jin,

2010; Shin, Heath, & Lee, 2011; Werder & Holzhausen, 2009) and on theorizing about and mea-

suring leadership in the public relations context (Lee & Cheng, 2012; Meng & Berger, 2013;

Meng, Berger, Gower, & Heyman, 2012; M.-L. Yang, 2012). For example, Aldoory and Toth

found a strong preference for transformational leadership over transactional leadership in public

relations. Jin (2010) examined the influence of emotions on public relations leadership and

proposes that ‘‘transformational leadership and empathy are key predictors of public relations

leaders’ competency in gaining employee trust, managing employees’ frustration and

optimism,’’ and handling ‘‘decision-making conflicts’’ (p. 159). Shin et al. (2011) compared

the leadership characteristics preferred by public relations practitioners in the United States

and South Korea and concluded that public relations leadership depends on culture and situation

differences. M.-L. Yang (2012) established the linkage among transformational leadership, the

job satisfaction of Taiwanese public relations practitioners, and organizational commitment and

observes the effectiveness of transformational leadership in generating positive attitudes among

public relations practitioners. Meng et al. (2012; Meng & Berger, 2013) conceptualized excellent

leadership in public relations and suggested that strategic decision-making capability, problem-

solving ability, and communication knowledge and expertise are the three most important

qualities of public relations leadership. Although several communicative aspects are discussed

by leadership theories about work-related leader–follower interactions and leadership communi-

cation has been examined by a few organizational communication scholars, limited systematic

studies have analyzed the effect of leadership on internal communication in the organization

(Mast & Huck, 2008).

To fill the research gap and expand the body of knowledge on leadership and internal

communication, this study investigates the effect of a particularly effective form of leadership

(Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013), transformational leadership, on symmetrical internal communi-

cation in an organization and employee outcomes (i.e., employee relational outcomes and

employee advocacy). The findings provide significant implications for communication

WHY LEADERSHIP MATTERS TO INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 257

professionals and organizational leaders on how to develop best practices of internal communi-

cation and form positive employee attitudes and behavior that contribute to organizational

effectiveness.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Leadership and Internal Communication

Whitworth (2011) suggested that organizational hierarchical communication, represented by

top-down or bottom-up communication among the successive layers of executives, managers,

supervisors, and nonmanagement employees, is a major component of an organization’s internal

communication system. Leaders at different levels significantly influence the top-down trans-

mission of messages to every employee and the communication of the opinions of employees

to top management. Immediate supervisors are the information source preferred by employees

and thus have more credibility with employees than senior executives (e.g., Larkin & Larkin,

1994; Whitworth, 2011). The communication competence, styles, and channels of a leader also

influence the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of employees. For example, Holladay and

Coombs (1993) noted that leadership communication shapes follower perception. Leaders

who clearly and persuasively communicate a vision gain the confidence of followers. Cameron

and McCollum (1993) found that the two-way nature of interpersonal communication channels,

such as team meetings, group problem-solving sessions, and supervisor briefings, enhances

employee–management relationships better than publications and fosters a sense of community

and belonging among employees (White, Vanc, & Stafford, 2010). Similarly, this study

argues that organizational leadership provides a critical organizational context for internal

communication.

Organizational Leadership

Leadership as a key factor in determining organizational success has been extensively studied in

management, business, and marketing, but leadership research in the public relations setting is

still emerging (Aldoory & Toth, 2004; Bass & Avolio, 1997). Yukl (2006) suggested that lead-

ership can be defined from various perspectives, such as the ‘‘traits, behaviors, influence, inter-

action patterns, role relationships, and occupation of an administrative position’’ (p. 2). For

example, Yukl and Van Fleet (1992) defined leadership as a process of influencing, including

‘‘influencing the task objectives and strategies of a group or organization, influencing people

in the organization to implement the strategies and achieve the objectives, influencing group

maintenance and identification, and influencing the culture of the organization’’ (p. 149). House

et al. (2004) conceptualized leadership as ‘‘the ability of an individual to influence, motivate,

and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization of which

they are members’’ (p. 15). Stogdill (as cited in Yukl, 2006, p. 8) noted that ‘‘there are as many

definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define this concept.’’

Researchers often define the term according to their individual perspective or the aspects of

the leadership phenomenon they are interested in (Yukl, 2006). This study agrees with Yukl

and Van Fleet (1992) that the essence of leadership is behavioral influence. Existing as a nested

258 MEN

form in the organization, leadership behavior influences not only the attitude and behavior of

followers and group performance but also the organizational structure, climate, culture, and

effectiveness (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992).1

Transformational Leadership

According to Bass (1985) and Bass and Avolio (1997), leadership behaviors may be categorized

into three styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire (nonleadership), known as the

full-range leadership model. Transformational leadership motivates followers by appealing to

their higher-order needs and induce employees to transcend self-interest for the sake of the group

or the organization. Transactional leadership appeals to followers’ lower-level personal desires,

based on instrumental economic transactions (Bennet, 2009). The laissez-faire leader is indiffer-

ent toward followers. Among these leadership styles, transformational leadership has received

the most significant scholarly attention across disciplines because of its relationship-oriented nat-

ure and the rich empirical evidence on its positive influence on employee attitudes and behavior

(e.g., Behling & McFillen, 1996; DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;

Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996).

Transformational leaders convey a strong sense of purpose and collective mission and

motivate employees by communicating inspirational vision and high performance expectations.

This form of leadership creates an emotional attachment between leaders and followers. Jin

(2010) noted that transformational leadership integrates ‘‘empathy, compassion, sensitivity,

relationship building, and innovation’’ (p. 174). Acting as role models, transformational

leaders elicit strong emotions from followers and identification with the leader (Yukl, 2006).

Transformational leaders take genuine interest in the well-being of employees, foster a climate

of trust, nurture confidence in their followers, and encourage individual development. Thus,

transformational leaders often closely interact with their followers to better understand and

address their needs. Transformational leaders empower followers in decision making and

delegate significant authority to followers to make them less dependent on the leader (Aldoory

& Toth, 2004; Men & Stacks, 2013; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Therefore, transformational

leadership is relationship-oriented, empowering, and participative by nature.

Although recognized as a dominant perspective in leadership research, transformational lead-

ership has been criticized for its conceptual broadness and measurement validity issues (e.g.,

Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013; Northouse, 2004, Yukl, 1999). For instance, Yukl (1999) criticized

transformational leadership for its lack of conceptual clarity regarding the criteria against

which leadership aspects are included in or excluded from the concept. Other researchers

(e.g., Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013; Northouse, 2004) have challenged the weak discriminant

validity of the most commonly used instrument of transformational leadership, the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1990), highlighting the difficulty to discern how each dimen-

sion has a distinct influence on the mediating processes and outcomes. Despite these concerns,

1Similar to Yukl and Van Fleet (1992), this study does not distinguish between leaders and managers because these

terms are often interchangeably used in leadership literature. Specifically, leaders or managers are considered to be

individuals who occupy organizational positions that require them to lead other employees.


research on transformational leadership has kept its momentums and won increasing popularity

across fields because of its merits in leadership effectiveness. Conceptualizations and measures

have been refined to address the abovementioned issues (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Bommer,

1990; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). Transformational leadership strongly emphasizes relationships,

individual consideration, meaning, and empowerment and thus has particular implications for

communication and relationship managers.

Symmetrical Internal Communication

According to J. E. Grunig (2006), the conceptualization of symmetrical communication was

stimulated by Carter (1965) and Chaffee and McLeod’s (1968) concept of coorientation. In con-

trast to traditional approaches about how to develop messages to change attitudes or behavior,

coorientation emphasizes how two people or levels of a system are jointly oriented to each other.

Similarly, the basic premise of a symmetrical model is how individuals, organizations, and the

public use communication to adjust their thinking and behavior, rather than control or manipu-

late how the other party thinks or behaves. Thus, symmetrical communication favors under-

standing, collaboration, responsiveness, and the creation of long-term and mutually beneficial

relationships (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002).

In the internal communication setting, symmetrical communication is defined as the com-

munication worldview and practice that characterized by its emphasis on ‘‘trust, credibility,

openness, relationships, reciprocity, network symmetry, horizontal communication, feedback,

adequacy of information, employee-centered style, tolerance for disagreement, and negotiation’’

(J. E. Grunig, 1992, p. 558; J. Kim & Rhee, 2011). Symmetry is entwined with power in orga-

nizational networks and management (e.g., Chiles & Zorn, 1995; Men, 2011b; Parker & Price,

1994). J. E. Grunig (1992) indicated that the asymmetrical use of power means that managers

maximize their power by controlling followers and increasing the dependence of followers on

them. By contrast, the symmetrical concept of power (i.e., empowerment) means ‘‘collaborating

to increase the power of everyone in the organization, for the benefit of everyone in the organi-

zation’’ (p. 564). Internal symmetrical communication in the organization is based on the prin-

ciples of employee empowerment and participation in decision-making (J. E. Grunig & L. A.

Grunig, 2011). In such a communication system, managers and followers engage in dialogue

and listen to each other; internal media disseminate information required by employees to foster

mutual understanding and understanding of individual roles. Thus, symmetrical communication

fosters a participative organizational culture and organic structure.

By contrast, asymmetrical communication takes the one-way, top-down approach. This type

of communication persuades or controls employee behavior for the goals of management. Asym-

metrical communication is often associated with a centralized and mechanical organizational

structure and authoritarian culture, where employees have little opportunity to offer input to

organizational decision making (J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). The effectiveness

of symmetrical communication in nurturing positive public attitudinal and behavioral outcomes

has been demonstrated in many studies (e.g., L. A. Grunig, et al., 2002; Ki & Hon, 2007, J. Kim

& Chan-Olmsted, 2005; Ni & Wang, 2011; Seltzer & Zhang, 2011). Likewise, the study argues

that symmetrical communication in an organization plays a vital role in building quality

employee–organization relationships and fostering employee advocacy.

260 MEN

Employee–Organization Relationships

Public relations practice and research have developed a new emphasis on building, and maintain-

ing, quality relationships with strategic publics (Kent & Taylor, 2002). As one major outcome of

public relations, organization–public relationships have been extensively examined in various

contexts, including corporate, nonprofit, government, global, and online settings (e.g., Bruning,

Castle, & Schrepfer, 2003; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000; L. A.

Grunig et al., 2002; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Huang, 2001; Hung, 2006; H. Kim, 2007; Ni

& Wang, 2011; Seltzer & Zhang, 2011). Broom, Casey, and Richey (2000) defined organiza-

tion–public relationships as ‘‘the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage

between an organization and its publics’’ (p. 18). Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) noted that

a relationship begins when consequences created by an organization affect the public, or vice

versa. Organization–public relationships can be experienced as a process and perceived as an

outcome (J. E. Grunig, 2006). As an outcome, such a relationship is indicated by public trust,

control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction (Huang, 2001), which contribute to the public’s

favorable perception of the organization (i.e., organizational reputation; S. Yang & J. E. Grunig,

2005) and supportive behavior (e.g., Bruning & Lambe, 2002; J. Kim & Rhee, 2011).2

Similarly, in the internal setting, the employee–organization relationship can be operationally

defined as the degree to which an organization and its employees trust one another, agree on who

has the rightful power to influence, experience satisfaction with each other, and commit them-

selves to the other. The quality relationships of organizations with their employees contribute not

only to organizational performance and the achievement of organizational goals but also to the

development and protection of organizational reputation and image in a turbulent environment.

J. Kim and Rhee (2011) proposed that employees with good long-term relationships with their

organization ‘‘are likely to consider organizational problems as their own, and are thus likely to

forward and share supportive information for their organization during organizational turbu-

lence.’’ By contrast, employees with poor relationships with the organization ‘‘are less empathic

to the organizational situation and more likely to disassociate themselves from their working

organization. Even worse, they empathize with external active publics who criticize and attack

the troubling organization and attribute problematic situations to organizational management’’

(p. 251). This notion reflects Rhee’s (2004) finding that employees who have positive

relationships with their organizations facilitate the development of positive relationships with

the organization’s external publics as corporate advocates.

Employee Advocacy

The influence of employees as informal spokespersons and brand advocates for organizations

has long been recognized within public relations (Dozier et al., 1995). Employees use their per-

sonal network to amplify the brand message or proactively personalize, promote, and defend the

2Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) suggested that trust concerns the willingness and confidence of both parties to a

relationship to open themselves to each other. Control mutuality refers to ‘‘the degree to which parties agree on who

has rightful power to influence one another’’ (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999, p. 13). Commitment means the desire of both

parties to make continuous efforts to maintain and promote a relationship. Satisfaction refers to the degree to which both

parties to a relationship are satisfied with each other.


brand. Compared with sophisticated public relations messages, what employees represent is

often perceived by external publics as neutral and credible (Men & Stacks, 2013). This obser-

vation is especially true in the social media era, when digital technologies facilitate not only

communication among employees but also interactions between employees and the external

publics. The interactions of employees with external publics arguably affect public relations

outcomes, such as the quality of organization–public relationships and organizational reputation

(J. Kim & Rhee, 2011). The unprecedented increase in employees’ power to communicate has

made employee advocacy a buzzword in professional literature on public relations. In the

academic arena, however, employee advocacy has yet to be studied as a focal concept.

Literature on marketing and business communication has extensively discussed the similar

concept of customer advocacy (e.g., Russel & Morgan, 2009; Urban, 2005; Walz & Celuch,

2010). Defined as ‘‘the promotion or defense of a company, product, or brand by a customer

to another’’ (Walz & Celuch, 2010, p. 96), customer advocacy behavior is more than a positive

form of word of mouth (WOM).3 Advocacy includes positive WOM but is also considered an

outcome of a strong relationship, in that the public defends the company or brand against critics

(Walz & Celuch, 2010). Thus, advocacy is a more influential form of behavioral support than

positive WOM. As an ultimate test of the relationship between an organization and its public,

advocacy significantly extends the effectiveness and efficacy of the communication efforts of

a company (Reicheld, 2003; Walz & Celuch, 2010). Similarly, in the internal setting, employee

advocacy is a major step forward in the evolving relationship (Urban, 2005) between an organi-

zation and its employees. Similar to Walz and Celuch (2010), this study defines employee advo-

cacy as a behavioral construct, that is, the voluntary promotion or defense of a company, its

products, or its brands by an employee externally.

Hypothesis Development: Linking Transformational Leadership, Symmetrical InternalCommunication, and Employee Outcomes

Transformational leadership and symmetrical internal communication. Leadership is

performed largely through communication (Holladay & Coombs, 1993). Hackman and Johnson

(2004) noted that transformational leadership is characterized by interactive, caring, visionary,

inspirational, and empowering communication behavior. Transformational leaders create chan-

ges through a creative process of thinking out of the box, such as being open to different

opinions and listening to the opinions of their followers. Transformational leaders genuinely care

about the well-being and feelings of their followers. Accordingly, such leaders often communi-

cate well and closely interact with employees to understand and address their higher-order needs

well. Therefore, a transformational leader can be ‘‘touched, felt, believed and heard’’ (Neff &

Citrin, 1999, pp. 39–40). Communicating a desirable, inspirational, and attainable vision is

among the most important acts of transformational leaders. Such a vision gives followers a sense

of meaning within the organization and thus improves their relational commitment to the organi-

zation. Transformational leadership communication is also empowering (Hackman & Johnson,

3Word of mouth refers to ‘‘informal communications directed at other consumers about ownership, usage, or

particular goods and services and=or their sellers’ characteristics’’ (Westbrook, 1987, p. 261).

262 MEN

2004): Transformational leaders seek opinion from followers and invite them to openly partici-

pate in the decision-making process (Hackman & Johnson, 2004). Therefore, transformational

leadership demonstrates the key inherent attributes of symmetrical communication, such as

openness, listening, feedback, two-way dialogue, participation, and accountability. Given that

leaders interact with employees daily, transformational leadership arguably serves as an avenue

for symmetrical communication in the organization. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Transformational leadership is positively associated with symmetrical internal communication.

Symmetrical internal communication and employee outcomes. Previous studies

have demonstrated the positive associations of internal symmetrical communication and

employee outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational identification, loyalty, employee–

organization relationships, and employee communication behavior (e.g., L. A. Grunig et al.,

2002; Jo & Shim, 2005; J. Kim & Rhee, 2011; Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001). For instance,

J. Kim and Rhee found that symmetrical internal communication efforts to cultivate positive

relationships with employees eventually lead to employees’ positive megaphoning (i.e., ampli-

fying organizational kudos) and scouting (i.e., voluntary environmental scanning) behaviors.

Similarly, thist study posits that when the organization’s communication system is open,

two-way, and responsive; invites feedback; addresses employee voices and concerns; and boosts

mutual understanding, collaboration, and dialogues, employees feel they have a better relation-

ship with the organization and are more likely to advocate for the organization. Therefore, the

following two hypotheses are suggested:

H2: Symmetrical internal communication is positively associated with the quality of employee–

organization relationships.

H3: Symmetrical internal communication is positively associated with employee advocacy.

Quality public relationships with the organization engender positive attitudes toward the

company as well as supportive behavior intention (Bruning, 2000, 2002; Bruning & Ledingham,

2000; Bruning & Ralston, 2000; Ki & Hon, 2007; J. Kim & Chan-Olmsted, 2005; Ledingham,

2001; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Peppard, 2000) and even actual behavior (J. Kim & Rhee,

2011). Thus, this study predicts that employees who perceive a quality relationship with the

organization are more likely to become loyal advocates for their company and promote or defend

the company and its products and services in public. Given that positive relationship is a major

precursor of advocacy (Urban, 2005), symmetrical communication efforts that enable organiza-

tions to foster positive relationships with employees could promote employee advocacy

indirectly. Therefore, it can be predicted that:

H4: The quality of employee–organization relationships is positively associated with employee

advocacy.

H5: Employee–organization relationships partially mediate the effect of symmetrical internal

communication on employee advocacy.

Transformational leadership and employee outcomes. Leaders represent the organiza-

tion in their communication with followers. Thus, leaders’ treatment of their followers may


influence how employees feel about the organization (Men & Stacks, 2013). Transformational

leadership positively affects employees’ attitudes and behavior toward their jobs and leaders,

such as trust in leaders, job satisfaction, satisfaction with the leader, leader–member exchange,

team=organizational commitment, loyalty, task performance, and organizational citizenship

behavior (e.g., Behling & McFillen, 1996; DeGroot et al., 2000; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Dumdum

et al., 2002; Dvir et al., 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1996).

Similarly, this study proposes positive relations between transformational leadership, employee–

organization relationships, and employee advocacy.

On the one hand, transformational leaders support employees, care about their concerns and

development, and delegate significant decision-making authority to them. Thus, employees are

motivated, empowered, and feel trusted by management. As a result, employees are satisfied

with the organization and less prone to leave. Furthermore, by coaching, listening, providing

performance feedback, fulfilling individual needs, and stimulating changes, transformational

leaders form lasting relationships with employees (D’Aprix, 2010) and foster employee

advocacy. On the other hand, transformational leadership communication is characterized by

symmetry, such as listening while telling, a balance of power, relationship orientation, trust,

and collaboration, which contribute to the development of symmetrical communication in the

organization. Symmetrical internal communication nurtures positive employee attitudes and

behavior (L. A. Grunig, et al., 2002; J. Kim & Rhee, 2011); thus, transformational leadership

can influence employee outcomes by shaping internal symmetrical communication. Therefore,

the following hypotheses are proposed:

H6: Transformational leadership is positively associated with employee–organization relationships.

H7: Transformational leadership is positively associated with employee advocacy.

H8: Symmetrical internal communication partially mediates the effects of transformational leader-

ship on employee outcomes (i.e., employee–organization relationships and employee advocacy).

Based on the preceding discussion on transformational leadership and symmetrical communi-

cation in association with employee outcomes, the conceptual model tested in this study was

developed as follows (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model of the impact of transformational leadership on symmetrical internal communication and

employee outcomes.

264 MEN

METHOD

This study empirically tested a causal model linking transformational leadership, symmetrical

communication, employee–organization relationships, and employee advocacy to generalize it

to a large population. Quantitative survey was considered appropriate for the research because

it allows the testing of causal relationships among variables of interest with nonexperimental

data while ensuring external validity (Judd, Smith, & Kidder, 1991; Weisberg, Krosnick, &

Bowen, 1996).4

Population and Sample

The study population comprised employees from different positions in medium-sized and large

corporations in the United States. Sample selection aimed to cover a diverse range of business

communities to cross-validate the proposed model. Rather than participant corporations, individ-

ual employees were recruited through a sampling firm.5 The sampling firm solicited partici-

pation from its 1.5 million research panel members in the United States through its patented

online sampling platform. Qualified potential participants were directed to the online survey

hosted by the researcher. Stratified and quota random sampling strategies were used to obtain

a representative sample with comparable age groups, gender, and corporation sizes across vari-

ous income and education levels. A final sample size of 402 was achieved (45.5% men and

54.5% women, 59.2% nonmanagement and 40.8% management employees, average age¼ 44).

Approximately 55% of the respondents held at least a bachelor’s degree. The respondents were

employees working in various corporations with average company tenure of 10 years.6

Data Collection

Before survey administration, one pretest and one preliminary survey were conducted to ensure

the reliability and validity of the measure. The pretest was conducted with 30 employees

of a Fortune 100 software company in the company food court in January 2011. Respondents

completed the survey and provided feedback on their opinions of the wording, thematic clarity,

and format of the survey. Based on respondent feedback, several questions were reworded

to avoid ambiguity. For example, the item ‘‘Leaders in my department consider my personal

feelings before acting’’ was changed to ‘‘My manager considers my personal feelings before

acting.’’ A five-point Likert scale on major concepts was also changed to a seven-point Likert

scale (1¼ strongly disagree, 7¼ strongly agree) to capture respondent traits well and follow

4The experiment method is generally considered the most rigorous way to establish causal relationships between

variables because it allows full control over extraneous variables. However, the external validity (i.e., generalizability)

of this method is low (Stacks, 2010; Wrench, Thomas-Maddox, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2008).5The sampling firm is a global provider of sampling solutions for survey research with headquarters in the United

States. This firm is the first commercial research sampling company.6The companies of participants covered various industries, including education, retail, health care, finance,

information technology, food, industrial and manufacturing, and transportation and logistics.


respondent suggestions. In March 2011, the researcher conducted a preliminary online survey

with 700 employees randomly selected from a Fortune 500 energy company through the

pretested instrument. A total of 167 employees completed the online survey. Preliminary analy-

sis of the reliability and validity of the measures revealed satisfactory results. Therefore, most of

the measurement items on key variables were retained. However, to avoid respondent fatigue

and reduce the length of the questionnaire, several demographic questions (i.e., questions about

ethnicity, nationality, and industry tenure) were excluded from the actual survey.

Data for the research were collected via an Internet survey in March 2012. The online ques-

tionnaire was used as the tool for data collection because of its low-cost and high-speed infor-

mation transmission (Stacks, 2010). On March 1, the link to the online survey was provided to

the sampling firm. Data collection began on March 5, when qualified participants randomly

selected by the sampling firm were directed to Weblink to complete the online survey. By March

15, 2012, a sample size of 402 had been achieved.

Measures

The measures of key concepts in this study were adapted from previous literature (J. E. Grunig,

1992; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009; Podsakoff et al.,

1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996). The scale used for close-ended questions was the seven-point

Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The measure of transformational

leadership was adapted from the Transformational Leadership Inventory of Podsakoff et al.

(1990).7 Strong evidence from prior empirical studies supports the reliability and validity of

this inventory (Kirkman et al., 2009; Pillai & Williams, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff

et al., 1996; Viator, 2001). Following Kirkman et al. (2009) and based on the pretest results,

a short measure of six items was used to evaluate the transformational leadership style of leaders

(e.g., ‘‘My manager articulates a vision,’’ ‘‘My manager shows respect for my personal

feelings;’’ a¼ .90).8

To operationalize symmetrical communication in the corporate internal setting, six items

developed by Dozier et al. (1995) were used (e.g., ‘‘Most communication between manage-

ment and other employees in this organization can be said to be two-way communication,’’

‘‘This company encourages difference of opinions;’’ a¼ .86).9 To assess the quality of the

relationship between the organization and its employees, this study used the widely adapted

instrument developed by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999). This 20-item instrument (a¼ .97)

comprises four subconstructs: employee trust (a¼ .89), control mutuality (a¼ .93), commit-

ment (a¼ .91), and satisfaction (a¼ .96). Two items were also used to evaluate employees’

advocacy of their organization (e.g., ‘‘I will speak favorably about my company in public;’’

a¼ .88).

7Instead of the standard leadership instrument (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; Bass, 1990), TLI was adapted

to measure transformational leadership because it is a more construct-valid measure.8The alpha values reported are Cronbach’s reliability coefficients for each construct in this study.9Although there exist a few measures of symmetrical communication (e.g., J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig, et al.,

2002) in the public relations literature, the study adopted Dozier et al.’s (1995) measure because it was developed parti-

cularly to measure the symmetrical qualities of internal communication from the employee’s perspective.

266 MEN

Data Reduction and Analysis

Before major data analysis, the data were proofread and checked to assess univariate normality

and identify obvious univariate and multivariate outliers.10 Expectation–maximization (EM) was

used to diagnose the pattern of missing data.11 Kline (2005) suggested that most methods used

to address incomplete observations assume that data loss patterns are negligible, missing

at random, or missing completely at random (MCAR).12 The result of Little’s MCAR test

was not significant (v2¼ 68.95, p¼ .90), indicating that the missing data were MCAR. EM

was then used to compute and impute missing data before all multivariate analyses.

The proposed model (Figure 1) and hypotheses were tested through structural equation

modeling (SEM) AMOS 19.0 software.13 Two-step latent-variable modeling was used. Multiple

criteria were used to evaluate the model goodness of fit, including the comparative fit index

(CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square

residual (SRMR). These indices are a minimal set of fit indices that should be reported and

interpreted in SEM analyses (Kline, 2005).14,15

RESULTS

The proposed model was analyzed and interpreted in two stages: (a) an assessment of the

construct validity of the measurement model through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

and (b) an assessment of the structural model. All four constructs in the structural model (i.e.,

transformational leadership, symmetrical communication, employee–organization relationships,

10Univariate outliers were detected by observing the subjects’ standardized values (z-scores) generated from descrip-

tive statistics in SPSS. Multivariate outliers were detected by comparing the Mahalanobis distance with the critical point

at a¼ .001 of the chi-square distribution with the degrees of freedom of the number of independent variables plus one

(An, personal communication, October 25, 2011).11EM includes two steps. In the estimation (E) step, missing data are imputed by predicted scores in a series of

regressions, where each missing variable is regressed on the remaining variables for a particular case. In the maximization

(M) step, all imputed data are subjected to maximum likelihood estimation. Both steps are repeated until a stable solution

is reached (Kline, 2005).12MAR denotes that the presence and absence of data on a certain variable are unrelated to those on any other

variable. MCAR is simply a stronger assumption about the randomness of data loss than MAR (Kline, 2005). Little’s

MCAR test, a statistical test available in the most recent version of SPSS, diagnoses the pattern of missing data. If the

result of Little’s MCAR test is not significant (H0: Missing data are MCAR), the null hypothesis is accepted, indicating

that the missing data are MCAR.13Kline (2005) proposed that SEM can be applied to both experimental and nonexperimental data to verify a priori

models consisting of latent variables or a mix of latent and observable variables. Thus, structural SEM was used as the

primary statistical method to test the hypothesized model.14Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested that a cutoff value close to .95 for CFI and the TLI, a cutoff value close to .08 for

SRMR, and a cutoff value close to .06 for RMSEA indicate good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed

data.15Kline (2005) observed that a single fit index reflects only a particular aspect of model fit and that a favorable value

of this index does not in itself indicate good fit. No single magic index provides a gold standard for all models. The

chi-square is the most commonly reported measure of model-data fit. However, the chi-square strongly depends on

sample size.


and employee advocacy) were specified as latent variables. The maximum likelihood method

was used for model estimation.

CFA

The test results of the initial measurement model indicated adequate but not good fit with the

data: v2(129)¼ 580.42, p< .001, v2=df¼ 4.50, RMSEA¼ .09 (90% confidence interval [CI]¼.08–.10), SRMR¼ .03, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI)¼ .91, and CFI¼ .93. The model was then

modified accordingly. Byrne (2010, p. 111) argues that ‘‘forcing large error terms to be uncor-

related is rarely appropriate with real data.’’ Allowing error covariance within the same construct

can also explain content redundancy. Following this line of thinking and based on model

modification indices, one error covariance between items one and six of the symmetrical

communication measure was added.16 This modification significantly improved data–model

fit (Dv2¼ 116.57, Ddf¼ 1, p< .001), and the modified model demonstrated satisfactory fit with

the data: v2(128)¼ 463.85, p< .001, v2=df¼ 3.62, RMSEA¼ .08 (90% CI¼ .07–.09), SRMR¼.04, TLI¼ .93, and CFI¼ .94. Thus, it was retained as the final CFA model.

The standardized factor loadings in Table 1 indicate that all four constructs had the satisfying

validity. The minimum factor loading was .51 in the indicator of ‘‘higher performance expec-

tation’’ in the latent variable of transformational leadership. Except for two other items (on

symmetrical communication), all factor loadings exceeded .70, suggesting that the hypothesized

measurement model had the desired validity.

Structural Model Analysis

The multivariate normality assumption of SEM was evaluated in AMOS before the hypothesized

model was estimated. The sample data showed significant positive multivariate kurtosis. There-

fore, bootstrapping17 (N¼ 2,000) through the maximum likelihood method was performed

to address the multivariate non-normality of the data. The bootstrap parameter estimations

did not deviate from those based on normal theory, indicating that the significant results

in Figure 2 remained significant in bootstrapping and the non-significant results remained

non-significant.

The hypothesized structural model in Figure 2 adequately fit the data: v2(128)¼ 463.85,

p< .001, v2=df¼ 3.62, RMSEA¼ .08 (.07–.09), SRMR¼ .04, TLI¼ .93, and CFI¼ .94.

Four structural paths demonstrated significant results at the p< .001 level.

The hypothesized model was simplified by eliminating nonsignificant paths. Kline (2005)

suggested that models can be trimmed according to empirical considerations, such as statistical

significance. The simplified model (Figure 3) was recalculated and compared with the hypothe-

sized model via nested model comparison. The hypothesized model had no significantly better

16The error covariance between item one (‘‘I am comfortable talking to my manager about my performance’’) and

item six (‘‘I am comfortable talking to my manager when things are going wrong’’) was .52.17Byrne (2010) described bootstrapping as a procedure in which small random samples are repeatedly obtained from

a sample to develop empirical estimates of the standard errors of any parameter. Bootstrapping is commonly used to

address multivariate non-normality.

268 MEN

FIGURE 2 Results of the hypothesized model. Coefficients are standardized regression weights. For the sake of brevity,

only the path model is demonstrated. The confirmatory factor analysis model pattern coefficients, error terms of

indicators, and disturbances of endogenous variables were omitted from the figure. ��p< .001.

TABLE 1

Standardized Coefficient of Measurement Indicators in the Final

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Model (n¼402)

Latent variable Indicator variable

No. of

Items

Std.

loading

Transformational leadership

(TL)

TL1: Articulating a vision 1 .83

TL2: Providing an appropriate model 1 .88

TL3: Fostering group goals 1 .86

TL4: High performance expectation 1 .51

TL5: Individual support 1 .77

TL6: Intellectual stimulation 1 .75

Symmetrical communication

(SC)

SC1: Comfortable talking to manager about performance 1 .64

SC2: Communication is two-way 1 .81

SC3: Encouraging difference of opinions 1 .85

SC4: Purpose of communication is to be responsive 1 .80

SC5: Informed about major changes 1 .72

SC6: Comfortable talking to manager when things go wrong 1 .67

Employee–organization

relationships

Trust 5 .90

Control mutuality 5 .87

Commitment 5 .92

Satisfaction 5 .92

Employee advocacy (EA) EA1: Speaking favorably about company in public 1 .94

EA2: Recommending the company’s brands, products, and

services to others

1 .84

Note. N¼ 402, CFA model fit indices: (2(128)¼ 463.85, p< .001, (2=df¼ 3.62, root mean square error of

approximation¼ .08 (90% confidence interval: .07–.09), Standardized root mean square residual¼ .04, Tucker–Lewis

Index¼ .93, and Comparative Fit Index¼ . 94. All standardized factor loadings are significant at p< .001.


fit than the simplified model: Dv2 (2, N¼ 402)¼ .774, p¼ .68. Therefore, the more parsimoni-

ous model was used as the final model to interpret path coefficients. The model fit indices of the

initial and final CFA models as well as the hypothesized structural and simplified final structural

models are presented in Table 2.

Hypothesis Testing

The study proposed eight hypotheses, six of which were fully supported by the data. The other

two were rejected. The results of each hypothesis test are presented as follows.

Direct effects. Hypotheses 1 predicts the positive effect of transformational leadership on

symmetrical communication. This hypothesis was supported by the data (Figure 3). In particular,

transformational leadership demonstrated a large positive effect on symmetrical internal com-

munication, b¼ .77, p< . 001, indicating that strategic leadership plays a critical role in shaping

the organization’s symmetrical communication system.

Hypotheses 2 and 3 propose the positive effects of symmetrical internal communication on

employee–organization relationships and employee advocacy. Consistent with previous findings

(e.g., J. Kim & Rhee, 2011), the results supported hypothesis 2. Symmetrical communication

FIGURE 3 Results of the retained (simplified) model with the deleted nonsignificant paths. Coefficients are

standardized regression weights. ��p< .001.

TABLE 2

Data-Model Fits for Two-Step Structural Equation Modeling (n¼ 402)

Model v2 Df p v2=df CFI TLI SRMR RMSEAa Dv2

Initial CFA model 580.42 129 .001 4.50 .93 .91 .03 .09 (.08, .10)

Final CFA model 463.85 128 .001 3.62 .94 .93 .04 .08 (.07, .09) 116.57��

Hypothesized structural model 463.85 128 .001 3.62 .94 .93 .04 .08 (.07, .09)

Final structural model 464.62 130 .001 3.57 .94 .93 .04 .08 (.07�.09) .77

Note. CFI¼Comparative Fit Index. TLI¼Tucker–Lewis Index. SRMR¼ standardized root mean square residual.

RMSEA¼ root mean square error of approximation. a90% confidence interval (low, high).

270 MEN

significantly and positively affected employee–organization relationships (b¼ .60, p< .001).

When the organization’s internal communication system is characterized by openness, two-

way dialogues, collaboration, and concern with employees’ welfare and voices, a quality

organization–employee relationship is most likely to develop. Surprisingly, however, symmetri-

cal communication had a negligible direct effect on employee advocacy because of the strong

mediation effect of employee–organization relationships. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was rejected.

Hypothesis 4 posits a direct positive effect of employee–organization relationships on

employee advocacy. This hypothesis was supported (Figure 3): employee–organization relation-

ships significantly and positively affected employee organizational advocacy (b¼ .79, p< .001).

This result implies that employees who perceive a mutually beneficial relationship with the

organization characterized by trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction are more

likely to publicly advocate for the organization.18

Hypotheses 6 and 7 predict the positive effects of transformational leadership on employee–

organization relationships and employee advocacy, respectively. The results supported

hypothesis 6 but rejected hypothesis 7 (Figure 3). In particular, transformational leadership

demonstrated a large positive effect on employee–organization relationships (b¼ .30,

p< .00). Employees led by transformational leaders are more likely to develop a positive

relationship with the organization. However, the direct effect of transformational leadership

on employee advocacy was non-significant because of the mediation effects of symmetrical

communication and employee–organization relationships.

Indirect (mediation) effects. A formal test of indirect effects through a bootstrap procedure

(N¼ 2,000) was conducted to test hypotheses 5 and 8. The indirect effects on paths from sym-

metrical communication to employee advocacy through employee–organization relationships

were significant (b¼ .61, p¼ .001, 95% CI¼ .43–.85). The indirect effects on paths from

transformational leadership to employee–organization relationships through symmetrical

communication (b¼ .44, p¼ .001, 95% CI¼ .35–.53) and from transformational leadership to

employee advocacy through symmetrical communication and employee–organization relation-

ships were also significant (b¼ .57, p¼ .001, 95% CI¼ .44–.71). Therefore, hypotheses 5

and 8 were supported. Employee–organization relationships mediate the effect of symmetrical

communication on employee advocacy. Symmetrical communication mediates the effects of

transformational leadership on employee outcomes.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

The internal communication system of an organization functions as a critical condition and a part

of excellent public relations (J. E. Grunig, 1992). As an extensive effort to expand knowledge on

excellence in internal communication, this study investigated the linkage among organizational

leadership (i.e., transformational leadership), the internal communication system (i.e., symmetri-

cal communication), and related employee outcomes (i.e., employee–organization relationships

and employee organizational advocacy). Results provided important implications for scholars

and professionals of public relations and organizational communication.

18Keith (2006) proposed that a standardized coefficient (b) of< .05 suggests a negligible effect, .05–.10 a minimal

but meaningful effect, .10–.25 a moderate effect, and> .25 a significant effect.


Transformational Leadership and Symmetrical Internal Communication

Leadership is the nucleus of the organization’s internal communication process (Mast & Huck,

2008). This study revealed the critical role of transformational leadership in shaping the sym-

metrical internal communication system of the organization. In particular, employees supervised

by transformational leaders are more likely to perceive the organization’s communication as

symmetrical. This finding can be explained by the fact that transformational leaders motivate

employees by appealing to their higher-order needs and care about their welfare, concerns,

and personal growth and development. To that end, transformational leaders encourage two-way

exchange in communication (Bass, 1998) and listen to the feedback and opinion of employees.

They often practice ‘‘management by walking around’’ and interact with employees face-to-

face. Transformational leaders also encourage innovativeness and creativity among their

followers and are tolerant of individual differences and value different opinions. Such leaders

align the individual goals of employees with group and organizational goals and foster collab-

oration among followers (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996). Transformational

leaders also delegate power and tasks to develop followers. Thus, by listening effectively

to employees, responding to employees’ higher-order needs, caring about employees’ interests,

and empowering employees, transformational leadership communication reflects the key

attributes of symmetrical communication, by which employees discern a balance of power,

feel cared for rather than controlled or manipulated, and value collaboration. Such interactive,

visionary, inspiring, relationship-oriented, and empowering leadership communication (Bass,

1998; Hackman & Johnson, 2004) forms a major part of the organization’s symmetrical

communication system and promotes positive employee outcomes.

Transformational Leadership and Employee–Organization Relationships

Transformational leadership positively affects the job attitudes and behavior of employees (e.g.,

Behling & McFillen, 1996; DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross 2000; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Dumdum,

Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe,

Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). Men and Stacks

(2013) found that transformational leadership at the organizational level positively influences

employees’ perception of organizational reputation. Similarly, this study revealed that transfor-

mational leadership significantly and positively affects employee–organization relationships.

Employees perceive a desired relationship with the organization when they perceive their

managers to be engaging, visionary, inspiring, empowering, and caring. How employees feel

about the organization is largely affected by how they are treated by their direct managers.

Transformational leadership also indirectly affects employee–organization relationships via

symmetrical communication. Transformational leaders create an open, symmetrical, reciprocal,

horizontal, and employee-centered communication climate and system and thus engage employ-

ees in a quality relationship with the organization. Such a setting also produces positive

relational outcomes, such as employee trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction.

Therefore, through exerting influence on every aspect of the organization, transformational

leadership, as an organizational contextual factor, not only provide a hospitable environment

where excellent public relations is nurtured, but also directly contributes to the development of

272 MEN

the organization’s symmetrical communication system and the cultivation of quality employee–

organization relationships. The excellence researchers (Dozier et al, 1995; J. E. Grunig et al.,

1992; J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 2011; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002) have noted that management

behaviors (i.e., empowerment) and organizational infrastructures (i.e., organic structure,

participative culture) are fundamental influencers of the organization’s symmetrical communi-

cation. In this regard, the study was among the first to provide empirical evidence on how

a particular leadership style, transformational leadership, facilitates the establishment of the

organization’s internal communication system and influences communication outcomes.

Symmetrical Internal Communication, Employee–Organization Relationships, andEmployee Advocacy

This study provides empirical evidence for the effectiveness of symmetrical internal communi-

cation in nurturing quality employee–organization relationships (e.g., L. A. Grunig et al., 2002;

Jo & Shim, 2005; J. Kim & Rhee, 2011; Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001). When the organi-

zation advocates open, two-way, and responsive communication, addresses the opinions and

concerns of employees, and boosts mutual understanding and collaboration, employees perceive

a positive relationship with the organization. Having employees involved indicates the organiza-

tion’s confidence and trust in employees and concern for them and thus provides employees

a sense of ownership regarding the organization and nurtures employee–organization relationships.

This study also established the linkage between employee relational outcomes and the

behavioral consequence of employee advocacy. The excellence study (e.g., L. A. Grunig et al.,

2002) suggests that long-term, positive relationships represent the value of public relations in that

such relationships may stimulate supportive public behavior while preventing destructive behavior.

However, empirical evidence on how quality relationships predict positive public behavior

toward the organization remains inconclusive (Ki & Hon, 2007). J. Kim and Rhee (2011) revealed

that employees with good relationships with the organization engage in microboundary-

spanning activities (i.e., self-propelled information seeking, selecting, forwarding, and sharing)

to support the organization. Similarly, our study found that employees who trust the organization

are satisfied with, and committed to, the organization, and agree on mutual influence are likely to

become corporate advocates that compliment, protect, and defend the organization in public and

recommend the organization, its product and services, and its brands to their personal networks.

In sum, the study indicates that the symmetrical internal communication system should be in

place for an organization to cultivate long-term, positive relationships with employees, which

in turn, increase the likelihood of employee advocacy behavior. Therefore, transformational

leadership and communication style should be developed to effectively and efficiently unlock

such internal advantage, maximize internal communication efforts, and eventually contribute

to business performance and organizational effectiveness.

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The findings of the study provide important theoretical and practical implications for public

relations, organizational communication, and management. Theoretically, first, by demonstrating

the impact of transformational leadership on symmetrical internal communication and employee


outcomes, this study empirically linked leadership to internal communication. It introduced a new

perspective to examine leadership in the context of public relations and a construct that can pro-

mote understanding of how organizational management and infrastructure affect the effectiveness

of internal communication. Past studies have acknowledged the nucleus role of leaders in internal

communication as information catalysts and employees’ most trusted source of information (e.g.,

De Vries, Bakker–Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010; Holladay & Coombs, 1993; Men & Stacks, 2013).

However, a systematic and empirical examination of leadership impact on internal communication

is lacking. Thus, the questions about leadership communication included in this study open up

a broad new territory for both public relations and organizational research. Second, the findings

of the study help advance the theories of relationship management in the internal setting. Aside

from symmetrical internal communication, transformational leadership was found to be an impor-

tant antecedent factor for positive employee–organization relationships, and employee advocacy to

be a behavioral consequence of such relationships. These concepts and the hypothesized model

specified how to enhance relationships internally and ultimately create supportive public behavior

and maximize the success of external communication efforts. The increasing and undeniable

importance of employees as the informal public relations force and communication assets of orga-

nizations necessitates the adoption of a context-specific and stakeholder-specific theory of internal

relationship management to guide practice. In addition, this study theorizes on employee advocacy

(a buzzword in professional publications on public relations) as an ultimate outcome of internal

communication efforts and thus contributes to the theory of the value of public relations. That

is, the value of public relations lies not only in shaping favorable perceptions or building positive

public relationships but also in engendering supportive public behavior.

Practically, the findings provide implications for internal communication professionals on how

to nurture best practices, breed internal excellence, and generate positive employee outcomes.

In particular, this study suggests that a two-way, employee-centered, and responsive symmetrical

communication system should be developed to guide daily communication practices and optimize

employee communication. For example, organizations could establish an internal listening center

that specializes in gathering and analyzing employee feedback through all available channels.

Second, this study suggests that internal communication efforts are affected by management effec-

tiveness and leadership behavior. The realm of public relations interacts with other subsystems in

the organization to achieve business goals and objectives. For best practices of internal communi-

cation, public relations professionals should consider all influencing contextual factors such as

leadership, organizational culture, structure, and diversity (L. A. Grunig et al., 2012; Men,

2011a, 2011b; Men & Stacks, 2013) to develop an inherently cross-enterprise and optimized com-

munication system encompassing all leaders, managers, and employees. In such an integrated

communication system, leaders are critical influencers and should thus be enabled and empowered

to be excellent communicators (Berger, 2008; Men & Stacks, 2013).

To that end, public relations and internal communication professionals should provide

managers at all levels with accurate information aligned with organizational values and goals;

identify, describe, and celebrate role models among employees; offer necessary training sessions

to develop the transformational leadership style, communication competence, and skills of lea-

ders; and embrace modern-day changes to equip leaders with an arsenal of tools that facilitate

internal communication. Leaders should be encouraged to adopt open-door policies that enable

them to listen to employees, solicit opinions and ideas, and facilitate upward communication.

Social media channels (e.g., instant messengers, blogs=microblogs, and social network sites)

274 MEN

with two-way, interactive=dialogical, communal, and relational features should be harnessed

to promote employee participation, engagement, and community building.

Most essentially, communication managers should link leadership=internal communication

to corporate returns on investment or business outcomes and develop effective measures and

metrics (e.g., at the dyadic, group, and organizational levels) to evaluate internal programs.

Successful measurement not only assists top management in understanding why internal

communication efforts are worth investing in, but also provides a roadmap for best practices.

Although building an integrated communication system requires the collaborative efforts of

public relations, human resources, management, and even operations, communication managers

should coordinate these functions; develop employee-specific, relevant messages; and promote

an open, symmetrical, and collaborative communication culture.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite the pioneering explorations of this study, several limitations were encountered and should

thus be addressed in future research. The first possible limitation was the common source measure-

ment; the data were collected only from the perspective of employees. To provide a more compre-

hensive understanding of how leadership influences internal communication, insights from public

relations professionals and organizational leaders should be incorporated. Second, the findings

can be generalized only to large and medium-sized corporations in the United States. Although

probability sampling improves the generalizability of this study, organizations outside the scope

of this study or those in other cultural settings should be careful in using the findings as reference.

Third, although this study contributes to a general understanding of the relationship among leader-

ship, internal communication, and employee outcomes, a triangulated approach incorporating

multiple methods, such as documentary analysis, in-depth interviews, focus groups, and participant

observation, would have provided in-depth and valid explanations about how the model works.

Future research may conduct replication procedures to cross-validate the results of this study

by using different samples from various organizational or cultural settings. Leadership might

exert a different degree of influence on employee communication in Asian organizations because

collectivist societies hold different attitudes toward power from those of individualist cultures

(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Qualitative research methods should be used to generate detailed,

descriptive, in-depth, and contextual understanding of the proposed model. An open-ended

qualitative approach could also facilitate the identification of potential mediators or moderators

of the effects revealed in this study. Incorporating the perspectives of public relations managers

into an examination of the relationships may provide a more comprehensive picture. Finally,

future researchers can incorporate other possible influencers of internal communication, such

as organizational culture, organizational structure, diversity issues, and job-related factors to

further test the model and expand the nomological network of excellent internal communication.

REFERENCES

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2004). Leadership and gender in public relations: Perceived effectiveness of transformational

and transactional leadership styles. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 157–183.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.


Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for multifactor leadershipquestionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Behling, O., & McFillen, J. M. (1996). A syncretical model of charismatic=transformational leadership. Group &

Organization Management, 21, 163–191.Bennett, T. M. (2009). A study of the management leadership style preferred by IT subordinates. Journal of

Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 13, 1–26.

Berger, B. (2008). Employee=organizational communications. Institute for Public Relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute

for Public Relations. Retrieved from: http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/employee-organizational-communications/

Broom, G. M,, Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concepts and theory of organization–public relationships. In J. A.

Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study

and practice of public relations (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bruning, S. D. (2000). Examining the role that personal, professional, and community relationships play in respondent

relationship recognition and intended behavior. Communication Quarterly, 48, 1–12.

Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction

evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review, 28, 39–48.Bruning, S. D., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E. (2003). Building relationships between organizations and publics:

Examining the linkage between organization–public relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavioral intent.

Communication Studies, 55, 435–446.

Bruning, S. D., & Lambe, K. (2002). Relationship-building and behavioral outcomes: Exploring the connection between

relationship attitudes and key constituent behavior. Communication Research Reports, 19, 327–337.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development

of a multi-dimension organization–public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25, 157–170.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration

of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26, 85–95.

Bruning, S. D., & Ralston, M. (2000). The role of relationships in public relations: Examining the influence of

relational attitudes on behavioral intent. Communication Research Reports, 17, 426–435.Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.

Cameron, G. T., & McCollum, T. (1993). Competing corporate cultures: A multi-method, cultural analysis of the role

of internal communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5, 217–250.Carter, R. F. (1965). Communication and affective relations. Journalism Quarterly, 42, 203–212.

Chaffee, S. H., & McLeod, J. M. (1968). Sensitization in panel design: A coorientation experiment. Journalism

Quarterly, 45, 661–669.

Chiles, A. M., & Zorn, T. E. (1995). Empowerment in organizations: Employees’ perceptions of the influences on

empowerment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 1–25.

D’Aprix, R. (2010). The challenges of employee engagement. In T. Gillis (Ed.), The IABC handbook of organizational

communication (2nd ed., pp. 257–269). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership¼ communication? The relations of leaders’

communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business

Psychology, 25, 367–380.

Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizationalcommunication: Advances in theory, research and methods (pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related

to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 357–371.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research

and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.

Dowling, G. R. (2004). Journalists’ evaluation of corporate reputations. Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 196–205.

Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and

communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

276 MEN

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership. In

B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35–65).

New York: JAI Press.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and

performance: A field study. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.Gray, J., & Laidlaw, H. (2004). Improving the measurement of communication satisfaction. Management Communi-

cation Quarterly, 17, 425–448.

Grunig, J. E. (1992). Symmetrical systems of internal communication. In J. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relationsand communication management (pp. 531–576). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 151–176.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2011). Characteristics of excellent communications. In T. Gillis (Ed.), The IABChandbook of organizational communication (2nd ed., pp. 3–14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of

relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.),

Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations(pp. 23–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of

communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1993). Communication visions: An exploration of the role of delivery in the creation

of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 405–427.Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute

for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation.

House, R. J., Hangers, P. J., Javidan, J., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V., & Asssociates. (2004). Leadership, culture,

and organizations: The GLOBLE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria

versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization–public Relationships.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 61–90.

Hung, C. J. F. (2006). Toward the theory of relationship management in public relations: How to cultivate quality

relationship?. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management

(pp. 443–476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jin, Y. (2010). Emotional leadership as a key dimension of public relations leadership: National survey of public relations

leaders. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22, 159–181.

Jo, S., & Shim, S. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of management communication on

trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31, 277–280.Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder, L. H. (1991). Research methods in social relations (6th ed.). New York, NY:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational leadership and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test

of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.Keith, T. J. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kennan, W. R., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Internal public relations, social capital, and the role of effective organizational

communication. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 311–340). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21–37.

Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkage among the organization–public relationship and attitude and

behavioral intensions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 1–23.Kim, H. (2007). A multi-level study of antecedents and a mediator of employee–organization relationship. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 19, 167–197.

Kim, J., & Chan-Olmsted, S. M. (2005). Comparative effects of organization–public Relationships and product-related

attributes on brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11, 145–170.


Kim, J., & Rhee, Y. (2011). Strategic thinking about employee communication behavior (ECB) in public relations: Test-

ing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 243–268.

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance and flower reactions to

transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–764.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Knippenberg, D. V., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic transformational leadership research:

Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management Annals, 7, 1–60.

Kreps, G. L. (1989). Reflexivity and internal public relations: The role of information in directing organizational devel-

opment. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton, Jr., Public relations theory (pp. 265–279). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1994). Communicating change: Winning employee support for new business goals. New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government–community relationships: Extending the relational theory of public relations.

Public Relations Review, 27, 285–287.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an

organization–public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65.

Lee, S. T., & Cheng, I.-H. (2012). Ethics management in public relations: Practitioner conceptualization of ethical

leadership, knowledge, training and compliance. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 27, 80–96.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and

transactional leadership: Meta-analytic review of the literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.Mast, C., & Huck, S. (2008). Internal communication and leadership. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds),

Public relations research: European and international perspectives and innovations (pp. 147–162). Retrieved from

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-531-90918-9_9#

Men, L. R. (2011a). CEO credibility, organizational reputation, and employee engagement. Public Relations Review,38, 171–173.

Men, L. R. (2011b). Exploring the impact of employee empowerment on organization–employee relationship. Public

Relations Review, 37, 435–437.

Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2013). Measuring the impact of organizational leadership style and employee

empowerment on perceived organizational reputation. Journal of Communication Management, 17, 171–192.

Meng, J., Berger, B. K., Gower, K. K., & Heyman, W. C. (2012). A test of excellent leadership in public relations: Key

qualities, valuable sources, and distinctive leadership perceptions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24, 18–36.Meng, J., & Berger, B. (2013). An integrated model of excellent leadership in public relations: Dimensions, measure-

ment, and validation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25, 141–167. doi: 10.1080=1062726X.2013.758583.

Neff, T. J., & Citrin, J. M. (1999). Lessons from the top. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Ni, L., & Wang, Q. (2011). Anxiety and uncertainty management in an intercultural setting: The impact on organization–

public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 269–301.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Parker, L. E., & Price, R. H. (1994). Empowered managers and empowered workers: The effects of managerial support

and managerial perceived control on workers’ sense of control over decision making. Human Relations, 47, 911–928.Peppard, J. (2000). Customer relationship management (CRM) in financial services. European Management Journal,

18, 312–327.

Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (1998). Does leadership matter in the political arena? Voter perceptions of candidates’

transformational and charismatic leadership and the 1996 U.S. Presidential vote. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 283–302.Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes

for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Journal of Management, 22, 259–298.Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their

effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly,

1, 107–142.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical

extensions. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354.

Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need. Harvard Business Review, 81, 46–54.

Rhee, Y. (2004). The employee–public–organization chain in relationship management: A case study of a government

organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

278 MEN

Russel, L., & Morgan, R. M. (2009). Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs. Journal of Business &Industrial Marketing, 24, 3–13.

Seltzer, T., & Zhang, W. (2011). Toward a model of political organization–public relationships: antecedent and

cultivation strategy influence on citizens’ relationships with political parties. Journal of Public Relations Research,

23, 24–45.Shin, J., Heath, R. L., & Lee, J. (2011). A contingency explanation of public relations practitioner leadership styles:

Situation and culture. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 167–190.

Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external

prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1051–1062.

Stacks, D. W. (2010). Primer of public relations research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York, NY: Free Press.

Urban, G. L. (2005). Customer advocacy: A new era in marketing? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24,155–159.

Viator, R. E. (2001). The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional accounting service, information

system assurance and business consulting. Journal of Information System, 15, 99–125.

Walz, A. M., & Celuch, K. G. (2010). Customer advocacy: The moderating role of trust. Journal of Consumer Satisfac-tion, Dissatisfaction & Complaining Behavior, 23, 95–110.

Weisberg, H. F., Krosnick, J. A., & Bowen, B. D. (1996). An introduction to survey research, polling, and data analysis.

Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.

Werder, K. P., & Holtzhausen, D. (2009). An analysis of the influence of public relations department leadership style on

public relations strategy use and effectiveness. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 404–427.

Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product=consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of

Marketing Research, 24, 258–270.White, C., Vanc, A., & Stafford, G. (2010). Internal communication, information satisfaction, and sense of community:

The effect of personal influence. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 65–84.

Whitworth, B. (2011). Internal communication. In T. Gillis (Ed.), The IABC handbook of organizational communication

(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wrench, J. S., Thomas-Maddox, C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2008). Quantitative research methods for

communication: A hands-on approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Yang, M.-L. (2012). Transformational leadership and Taiwanese pubic relations practitioners’ job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 40, 31–46.

Yang, S., & Grunig, J. E. (2005). The effects of organization–public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations

of organizations and overall evaluations of organizational performance. Journal of Communication Management, 9,

305–325.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories.

Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.

Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 147–197). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.


Copyright of Journal of Public Relations Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd andits content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without thecopyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or emailarticles for individual use.

why leadership matters to internal communication: linking ......public relations practitioners. meng...

Documents