One of the better outcomes of our year of COVID-19 has been a recognition of the importance of employees and, specifically, good internal communications. So, not surprisingly, among the impacts of the pandemic on the 2021 International Public Relations Research Conference was the proliferation of new research on internal communications and culture.
Your internal culture drives your external conversations and reputation
One paper that spoke to a topic nearest and dearest to my heart was from Dr. Michael Johann of the University of Augsburg on the link between internal and external communications. (“Exploring the Link between Internal and External Communication: How Supportive Organizational Culture Shapes Company-Public Relationships on Social Media”)
I’ve believed in that link for a long while, but, over the years, my own research has proven me wrong. For many of my clients, comparisons between internal chatter and external news showed almost no overlap between what employees were obsessing about on Slack or the Intranet and what occupied the attention of journalists following the company.
Dr. Johann showed me where my analysis had gone wrong. It turns out I had it backwards. External communications may not drive employee discussions, but internal culture—e.g., shared values, symbols, beliefs, and assumptions—does in fact drive external perceptions. His research, conducted among corporate social media professionals and community managers, showed that a supportive organizational culture supports healthy symmetrical communication with external publics and improved relationships with those publics.
Practical implications and lessons learned: If you’re managing internal communications, you can worry less about what is being said to other publics. Never forget that your internal culture and approach to communications is a precondition for sustainable relationships with your publics.
Laissez-faire leadership will be your downfall
Ji Jin of the University of Florida examined Dr Johann’s thesis from the opposing perspective. (“How Avoidant Leadership Styles Turns Employees into Adversaries: The Impact of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Employee-Organization Relationships”) It turns out that a “laissez-faire” leadership style, in which leadership is hands off and there is no guiding culture, has a negative impact on employees’ perception of organizational justice. Furthermore, if the employee-organization relationship is damaged by that hands-off approach, employees are more likely to engage in “negative megaphoning,” i.e., tell the world how awful things are in your company. When internal culture is strong and relationships healthy, employees are more likely to help you spread the good news (positive megaphoning).
Practical implications and lessons learned: Culture is key to your reputation. Identify the least engaged employees and see if you can turn them around. If not, be prepared for negative comments on Glassdoor and Twitter that may well bring on your next PR crisis.
If you don’t want to lose good employees, make sure everyone feels a strong identification with your organization
In an era where your next crisis is one disgruntled employee’s Tweet away, it’s essential to understand how internal communications can impact employees’ reactions to a crisis. Reinforcing Jinn’s argument for strong corporate culture was new research on internal communications by Chelsea Woods and Brandi Watkins of Virginia Tech School of Communications. (“Understanding How Organizational Identification and Communication Channel Selection Impact Employees’ Post-Crisis Reactions”) They used social identity theory (the perception of oneness with an organization) to explore the connection between the strength of the ties an employee feels to their organization and their job satisfaction and likelihood to remain with the company after a crisis.
The researchers conducted an experimental study, exposing 424 respondents to a crisis situation modeled on an actual crisis. Their findings revealed that employees who highly identify with their employer will report higher post-crisis internal reputation after a crisis. On the other hand, if they have low identification with the company, their perception of the company will decline.
Employees who have positive or neutral perceptions of an organization will have higher regard for the company, be more satisfied, and be less inclined to leave after a crisis. Employees who have negative perceptions of a company before a crisis will be more likely to leave after a crisis.
They also found that direct communications from the company, such as emails, will result in higher post-crisis perceptions of the company’s reputation, as opposed to hearing news via the media or seeing a Facebook post.
Practical implications and lessons learned:
- When a crisis hits your organization, it’s not necessarily bad news all around. With good direct communications and messaging you can improve your reputation among employees, at least those who are already neutral or favorable towards you.
- For those employees who are already disengaged or unfavorable toward the organization, be prepared for them to leave.
Every employee wants to feel heard, here’s how to listen well
Marlene Neill of Baylor University and Shannon Bowen of the University of South Carolina examined the state of listening in U.S. organizations. (“Employee Perceptions of Ethical Listening in U.S. Organizations”) Their purpose was to identify the primary means that organizations use to listen to internal stakeholders, the effectiveness of those listening efforts, and barriers to effective listening.
They surveyed 300 U.S. employees in July 2020. 40% were managers and 60% were non-managers, divided roughly evenly between men and women. Respondents were provided with a list of different types of internal listening, from meetings with a direct supervisor to annual employee surveys, as well as other types of meetings, anonymous reporting systems, and apps.
The most concerning finding was that most employees not only don’t feel listened to, but as a result they don’t speak up when there’s a problem. In answer to “How often do you keep quiet about a flaw, problem, concern, or brewing issue in this organization because you don’t want to deliver bad news?” respondents said:
- sometimes, 25%,
- about half the time, 21.7% ,
- most of the time, 25.7, and
- always, 13%.
That explains a lot, most obviously the systemic problems with the Boeing 737 MAX and the graft of Wells Fargo.
When employees, especially women and non-managers, did complain, they perceived leadership as not genuine about their interest in hearing their views. The most frequent barriers to listening were the inability of information to move up the chain of command and limited capacity to share information with those who need it.
Practical implications and lessons learned: If you ask for feedback, make sure you respond to that feedback with an action, or at least an explanation of what you can or cannot do about it.
Train employees at all levels on how to collect critical information and help them move it up to the attention of leadership, if necessary. Provide the technology to make it easy to listen and to get information in front of people who need it. Virtual town halls did that exceptionally well in 2020.
CEO social activism is good for employee engagement
If the Edelman Trust Barometer didn’t convince you that 86% of employees expect their CEOs to publicly speak out on societal issues, then new research on internal communications from Chen Hong of California State University Sacramento and Ye Grace Ji of Boston University certainly should. Their paper examined the impact of CEOs taking public stances on social, political, and environmental topics unrelated to their basic business. (“When authentic leadership engages employees: Testing mediating effects of employees’ attributions of CEO activism”)
Earlier research has revealed that employees expect CEOs to hold public positions on hotly debated issues. But the question remains: “How does that activism impact employees?” To find the answers the authors conducted a survey of 600 U.S. employees who identify their CEOs as advocates for an issue.
The results indicated that when employees attribute authentic commitment to CEO’s social issues it will in fact enhance employee engagement with the organization. But the caveat is that CEOs need to be consistent with their image, be authentic, relevant, and act based on internal values.
Practical implications and lessons learned: Authenticity starts with a clear purpose and a universal understanding of that purpose. Presumably, that originates from the CEO and c-suite. So whatever communications they utter need to be consistent with that purpose. If a letter is the CEO’s idea, then you need to try your best to ensure that whatever is in that letter is consistent with your purpose. If you’ve decided that issuing a letter from the CEO is a good PR move, make sure your organization’s purpose and culture is clearly defined and articulated to all employees, then broadcast it publicly loudly and clearly. Take concrete steps to support that purpose and make sure your employees and the public know what you’re doing. You will lose all credibility with employees and other stakeholders if you come out in favor of diversity and a year later your board and senior leadership is overwhelming white and male. ∞
