GHANA INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH FACULTY OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, MARKETING AND ADVERTISING. TOPIC: INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN ORGANIZATIONS. BY ANITA SAAYENG (MAPR19082) A LONG ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE GHANA INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF A MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN PUBLIC RELATIONS. SUPERVISOR: DR. LOUISE CAROL DONKOR SEPTEMBER, 2020 i DECLARATION I hereby declare that this long essay is my own original work and all references have been accurately reported and acknowledged, and that this work in its entirety or part has not been previously submitted for another academic qualification in this University or elsewhere. STUDENT: ANITA SAAYENG SIGNATURE: ……………………… DATE: ……………………………….. SUPERVISOR: DR. LOUISE CAROL DONKOR SIGNATURE: DATE: ii DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my loving mum, Betty Saayeng whose words of encouragement, prayers and immense support has brought me this far and to my best friends Ruth Bazing and Qudirat Ishak whose push for tenacity and believe in my abilities has greatly influenced my life positively. I also dedicate this dissertation to three special people who made this dream possible Mrs. Akua Owusu-Asamoah, Mrs. Emma Frimpong and Uncle Ralph. God richly bless you all. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First, I would like to say thank you to God Almighty for His love and protection through out this journey. Secondly an immense gratitude goes to my supervisor, Dr. Louise Carol Donkor, for her wonderful supervision, encouragement and guidance throughout the research process. Thank you to my lovely mum Betty Saayeng and best friends Ruth Bazing and Qudirat Ishak for their immense support throughout this program. Special thanks goes to my grandma Magdalene Saayeng, lovely aunties, Celine, Akua, Emma and Uncle Ralph. I couldn’t have gotten here without you. Also, a big thank you goes to Mr. Baba Tuahiru, Lawyer Thaddeus Sory, Prince Freeman, Raziq, Naa-il and Farhan, Charles Akor, Hamza Sherif, Edmund Mbreku, Stephen Egberongbe and Nana Kofi Nyame for all you have done for me. Lastly, sincere gratitude goes to all who in one way or the other helped in this research. God richly bless you all. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. i DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Chapter Overview ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background of the Study ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objective of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Research Question ................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 5 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Chapter Overview ................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 The Concept of Employee Engagement ................................................................................ 5 2.1.1 The Need for Employee Engagement ........................................................................... 12 2.2. The Concept of Internal Communication ........................................................................... 13 2.2.1 Factors of Internal Communication identified.............................................................. 15 v 2.2.1.1 Superior-subordinate communication........................................................................ 15 2.2.1.2 Quality of information ............................................................................................... 16 2.2.1.3 Superior openness .................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1.4 Opportunities for upward communication ............................................................... 16 2.2.1.5 Reliability of information .......................................................................................... 17 2.2.1.6 Team climate ........................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Relationship between Internal Communication and Employee Engagement ..................... 17 CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 23 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.0 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................... 23 3.1 Method ................................................................................................................................ 23 3.2 Sample ................................................................................................................................. 23 3.3 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 24 3.4 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 25 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 25 4.0 Chapter overview ................................................................................................................ 25 4.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 25 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 26 vi 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Chapter Overview This chapter focuses on the background of the study, objectives of the study, research questions, and significance of the study. 1.1 Background of the Study In contemporary times when there are increasingly competitive markets, high demands for constant change and the struggle for competent workforce among others, organizations are challenged to pursue organizational success and investment in human capital has been identified as a key medium of creating a competitive edge and sustaining business entities. Majority of organizations have bought into the idea of investing in their employees to enable them to deliver their discretionary effort to ensure organizational success in highly competitive environments. It is highly possible for an organization to acquire most assets like those of its competitor but it is impossible to replicate the expertise and knowledge of its competitor’s workforce. This is because employees, unlike other assets of organizations such as equipment, are living beings and so the thinking, reaction and response of one organization’s human resources will definitely differ from another’s. Since employees are living beings, organizations have the responsibility to motivate them to engage with their work to help provide favorable outcomes to the organizations like increased profits, effectiveness and productivity (Saks, 2006). It is crucial for organizations to always get their workforce engaged by ensuring good relationship between the organizations and them as well as by providing them with the best possible initiatives to make them more enthused, valued and feel involved in the organization (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004). In essence, organizations that practice the phenomenon of employee engagement 2 effectively tends to succeed in their operations (Woodruffe, 2006: Harley, Lee & Robinson, 2005; Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 2004). Employee engagement has thus emerged as a vital means for organizations to ascertain their investment in their workforce. Since employees are living beings, organizations have the responsibility to motivate them to engage with their work to help provide favorable outcomes to the organizations like increased profits, effectiveness and productivity (Saks, 2006). Besides, engaging employees makes them conscious of their individual roles in attaining the organizational goals and they do this to the extent of motivating their colleagues sometimes. It is crucial for organizations to always get their workforce engaged by ensuring good relationship between the organizations and them as well as by providing them with the best possible initiatives to make them more enthused, valued and feel involved in the organization (Robinson et al., 2004). Employee engagement has thus emerged as a means for organizations to ascertain their investment in their workforce. There are many elements that influence employee engagement. Among all, internal communication is considered as an important driver in the process and maintenance of employee engagement in the work environment. According to Karanges (2014), internal communication is regarded as a critical underlying driver of employee engagement and hence organizations experience higher levels of engagement if the organizations communicate effectively with employees (Baumruk, Gorman, & Gorman, 2006; Hoover, 2005; Woodruffe, 2006; Yates, 2006) and hence higher levels of employee engagement are the results of effective communication (Baumruk et al., 2006; DeBussy, Ewing, & Pitt, 2003; Yates, 2006). 3 Gaither (2012) asserts that communication lapses can be disastrous for any organization particularly in the present competitive business environment. In assessing organizational performance and employee engagement, organizations consider effective internal communication as paramount (Saks, 2006). Several studies have been conducted on the relationship between internal communication and employee engagement. To deepen the understanding and/or create a new understanding of the relationship of the two concepts, one way is through the systematic review of literature and meta- analysis of studies on this topic. 1.2 Objective of the Study 1. To systematically review literature and analyze existing studies on the relationship between internal communication and employee engagement. 1.3 Research Question 1. How does the published literature contribute to our empirical knowledge of the relationship between internal communication and employee engagement? 1.4 Significance of the Study This study would help to enhance local literature on the subject matter. Again, it will provide support particularly to the service sector of the country’s economy to effectively and efficiently provide services to their clients and/or to ensure the attainment of the organizational goals including increased productivity and profits. Conducting a meta-analysis of the relationship between internal communication and employee engagement in this study is positioned suitably to generate deeper knowledge of relevance for practitioners, academics and researchers. This study therefore contributes to the empirical assessment of the internal communication and employee 4 engagement connection. Meta-analysis is a subset of systematic reviews. It is a method for systematically merging relevant studies to develop a single conclusion that has greater statistical power. The conclusion, here, is statistically stronger than the findings of any single study because of the number of studies reviewed. 5 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Chapter Overview This chapter sought to review related literature which has employee engagement and internal communication, and their relationship within organizations. 2.1 The Concept of Employee Engagement As an emerging concept, Sambrook, Jones, & Doloriert (2014) defines employee engagement as an academic term or business management phenomenon. Choo, Mat, & Al-Omari (2013) and Bakker (2011) note that this concept of engagement between employees and leaders of organizations is critical to the success and survival of businesses and organizations and hence ignoring it or failure to implement it will likely obstruct organizational success. In the management of business and/or organization, the investment of employees is measured by the concept of employee engagement (Kumar & Sia, 2012). The notion of employee engagement at work was introduced by Kahn (1990) being defined as “harnessing of members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.” According to Kahn (1990), the physical aspect of employee engagement is the physical energies exerted by individuals to finish their given tasks whilst the beliefs of employees about the organization, its leaders and working conditions constitute its cognitive aspect, and the emotional aspect pertains to the employees’ feeling about those three factors individually and whether they have positive attitudes toward the organization and its leaders or otherwise. In addition, one has to be physically and psychologically present while on duty at work for engagement to be attained (Kahn, 1990). 6 Several years following Kahn’s work on engagement, many have done studies on the concept. One of such was conducted by Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter who made contributions to the concept by presenting it as “a persistent positive affective state … characterized by high levels of activation and pleasure” (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Bakker et al. (2006) contributed to their antithetic approach by undertaking a further study particularly pertaining to the relationship between the motivational state of entire work teams and its individual members. According to Shuck and Wollard (2010), both works are fundamental in further research about the conceptualization of employee engagement. As the one who conceptualized the theory of engagement, Kahn (1990) asserted that when employees are engaged personally, they tend to employ and exhibit the preferred self cognitively, emotionally, and physically when performing their given tasks. Thus, engaged employees invest their entire beings in their jobs while at the work setting. Kahn (1990) propounded three types of engagement: (i) Emotional engagement: This is a connection that causes a commitment from individuals by offering a personal sense of beliefs, pride, and knowledge to the organization (Shuck & Reio, 2014). In the view of Shuck and Rose (2013), antecedents like family, stress, and emotional connection might influence the development of employee engagement. This form of engagement happens when an employee exhibits emotional attachment with the organization. Emotional connection is often identified with family-based organizations. (ii) Cognitive engagement: Shuck & Reio (2014) indicates that this type of engagement takes place whether or not employees regard work as meaningful, and whether the relevant tools are available to accomplish the work. Staff view meaningful work through 7 the purpose, services and products of the organization and are elated to provide efficient service to the clients or customers of the organization on the basis of their contributions as individuals (Subramoniam, 2013). Employees who regard their work as significant might engage themselves in the organization’s success (Steger, Dik, & Duffy, 2012). (iii) Behavioral engagement: This is the physical revealing of both cognitive and emotional engagement (Shuck & Reio, 2014). Employees, at this stage of engagement, are immensely productive and they contribute more and more to the organization’s success as their careers’ progress (Alagaraja & Shuck, 2015). In the opinion of Shuck and Reio (2014), employee efforts resulting from a greatly engaged workplace causes the organization to continuously experience increased profit and productivity. The physical effort of the workforce in their work results in increased cognitive and emotional engagement particularly when behavioral engagement is in motion. Engaged employees that hold the work environment in high esteem and are doing significant work will perhaps make their thoughts known without the fear of being sanctioned. According to Fairlie (2011), meaningful work is determined by the following measures: (a) Personal accomplishments (b) Employee surveys (c) Career success (d) Values (e) Goals (f) Purpose 8 Nevertheless, according to Gupta Fr and Sharma (2016), it is challenging to define employee engagement because it can pertain to such concepts as work engagement, job satisfaction and involvement, commitment or Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). In defining employee engagement, two perspectives can be considered. First, is engagement an individual decision from the employee? Second, is engagement an organizational variable? In the view of Shuck and Wollard (2010), the first approach is the most significant as “engagement in work is a personal experience inseparable from the individualistic nature of being human.” However, the influence of the team on its individual members is an intriguing approach not to lose sight of a relationship between collective engagement of work teams and its members has been exhibited (Bakker et al., 2006). Again, studies on employee engagement either as a general engagement (Czarnowksy, 2008; Harter, Schmidt and Hayes, 2002; Maslach et al., 2001) or as the construct of diverse forms of engagement including behavioral, emotional, and cognitive (Macey & Schneider, 2008: Saks, 2006). The second approach, which is clearer and more peculiar, allows a more efficient study and execution of strategies to promote employee engagement (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). The behavioral manifestation of employee engagement is an element which has created consensus among all experts ̶ as “an internal decision manifested outwardly (…) a positive or forward-moving emotive state” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010), though it can be measured by varied consequences such as the role of employee performance, the discretionary efforts of the employee and the profit and success of the employer. One other element that experts and researchers agree on is that employee engagement is oriented to the realization of the organization’s goals and that is not to be confused with other employees can acquire out of their work responsibilities (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). 9 Considering the above, employee engagement can be defined as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). It can also be defined as “employees’ emotional and intellectual commitment to their organization and its success. Engaged employees experience a compelling purpose and meaning in their work and give their discrete effort to advance the organization’s objectives” (Balakrishnan & Masthan 2013). The ability of individual employees to express their thoughts and views without anticipating negative feedback makes them feel safe in their organizations (Allen & Rogelberg, 2013). Executing tools of measurement to determine employee engagement enables employees to express their ideas freely, which might be critical to maintaining and increasing workplace engagement. Employee engagement is not a singular concept that can be suitable in all industries, and the techniques may vary to foster engagement based on the organization’s size and type. Strategic application of diverse methods might establish a culture of engagement in varied ways based on the organization’s structure (Shuck & Herd, 2012). Most organizations employ a business technique to include effective employee engagement (Cattermole, Johnson, & Jackson, 2014). Managers of organizations might need to assess why the workforce are not encouraged to engage and then make a plan that suits the needs of their organizations the most. Bakker (2011) opined that due to the problems associated with engagement, further research might be needed to explore what may affect different dimensions of engagement. It is important to have further studies on the subject to appreciate how workers in the public sector are affected by employee engagement (Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, & Schohat, 2013). 10 Researchers of the types of employee engagement have defined employee engagement in many ways. Some of them are as follows: a. Fully engaged employees: These refer to individuals who use their whole beings in operations of the organization. Wollard (2011) notes that employees that are fully engaged use physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual energy at the work environment. Fully engaged employees demonstrate an increase in work effort, innovation, work quality and productivity (Pater & Lewis, 2012). Again, employees that are fully engaged tend to create a better work environment for both the employer and employee (Wollard, 2011). b. Highly engaged employees: These are individuals who work with diligence and are very likely to work with the organization for a long period of time (Anand & Banu, 2011). Highly engaged employees who work in a diligent manner tend to be innovative, happy at work, creators of a cohesive work environment and thoughtful about the interests of the organization (Marrelli, 2011). Employees that are highly engaged are committed to the organization and its increased productivity and profit as well as perform their roles in the organization beyond expectations (Anand et al., 2011). c. Moderately engaged employees: These are individuals that are present at work but not entirely engaged (Marrelli, 2011). Marrelli (2011) again argues that moderately engaged employees are those individuals who turn up at work to only obtain remuneration and strive to work just to keep their jobs. Failure on the part of managers to quickly resolve problems at the workplace over time can result in disengagement of employees that were 11 previously engaged or those who are neutral (Pater & Lewis, 2012). To prevent a situation where employees become completely disengaged, managers or leadership of organizations should address the challenges facing employees whose engagement are minimized. d. An organization’s definition of emotional engagement and transactional engagement might determine how employees view the organization. According to Baron (2013), transactional engaged employees are less attached to their employers emotionally though they remain engage whereas employees who are engaged emotionally have higher levels of well-being and engross at a deeper level. This variance will probably enable leaders or managers of organizations to determine the strategies to employ to engage employees on the basis of their engagement level. By virtue of the distinctions between these two types of engaged employees, Baron (2013) asserts, managers and leaders of organizations are likely to acquire the services of emotionally engaged employees. Transactional engagement correlates positively to the intensity of work and might portray significant performance in the short term though there is a decline in performance over time (Baron, 2013). Leaders of organizations tend to cultivate leadership when they do not effectively concentrate on transactional engagement in the short term (Baron, 2013). In the long term, organizations that turn attention to recruiting emotionally engaged employees are likely to yield effective leadership and high performance. 12 2.1.1 The Need for Employee Engagement Employees are valuable asset and intellectual capital to any organization and hence a key source of competitive advantage for the organization (Harter, 1994; Becker and Huslid, 2000; Buckingham and Vosburgh, 2001). In contemporary times where there is a high demand for persons with expertise, human resources are held in high esteem by organizations. It is possible for an organization to obtain assets just like its competitor but it is unlikely that it can imitate the expertise of its competitor’s employees. Currently, human resources have stronger bargaining power as the demand for them, across the globe, has increased tremendously. This has rendered the notion of employee engagement very necessary. Employees who are engaged tend to be passionate about their work, and passion always comes alongside with enthusiasm, excitement and productivity, according to Kroth and Boverie (2013). Thus, employees exert more energy in performing their duties when they are passionate. Not only do such employees make more contributions to work but they also tend to be very loyal and hence unlikely to leave the organization voluntarily. Catlette and Hadden (2001) argue that every employee has power over the amount of discretionary effort he or she avails to the organization. Presently, the need for engaged employees is very crucial to surviving and prospering in business. The focus of organizations on human capital management has become the order of the day. Dave Ulrich (1997) states that, “employee contribution becomes a critical business issue because in trying to produce more output with less employee input, companies have no choice but to try to engage not only the body but the mind and soul of every employee”. An engaged employee has the tendency to consistently outperform and achieve new standards of excellence (Harter et al., 2002). The most important feature of employee engagement is to rationally and emotionally bind 13 employees to the work; therefore, there is an increase in employee retention period which reduces repetition in recruitment and its accompanying expenditure. Engaging employees enables them to know and appreciate how their deliverables are associated with the objectives of the organization making them more focused on and fully committed to the essential activities. As a result, they will deliver more with the trust of managers in them. Engaged employees will be highly motivated apart from performing exceedingly well. They tend to exhibit strong commitment and willingly make more contributions, as well as voluntarily become ambassadors and advocates of the organization developing strong relationships with business partners and clients. Besides, engaged employees are more innovative and put much effort in discharging their duties. This positive attitude is very critical particularly in organizations that deal with clients or customers with diverse social status and culture. Employee engagement can increase the profitability and efficiency. Engaged individuals puts their whole beings in their work especially with high level of self‐efficacy and a positive effect upon welfare and health, resulting in the support of the employees for the organization (Robertson-Smith, & Markwick, 2009). Therefore, employee engagement is very necessary to getting all employees on board and obtaining their loyalty. 2.2. The Concept of Internal Communication Internal communication can be defined as the exchange of both formal and informal information between employees and management within the organization. Nonetheless, internal communication simply means a balance between relations and information. According to Welch 14 and Jackson (2007), until the twentieth century when practitioners and researchers had interest, studies on internal communication was not very much developed. Thus, experts in organizational psychology and organizational communication conducted the initial studies (Tkalac Verčič, Verčič & Sriramesh, 2012). Experts and researchers from such varied fields as management, corporate communication, human resources and marketing demonstrate interest in internal communication (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2012). As a result, examining and defining internal communication in organizations is cumbersome. Ruck and Welch (2012) opines that depending on multidisciplinary approach, an approach which does not limit practitioners and researchers, is the only way to solve that problem. There are two dimensions of internal communication that invariably emerge when examining its several definitions. These dimensions are the relational and informational characteristics. Therefore, internal communication can best be described as “a component of a global organization system of information flows and interactions aimed at reaching an informational and relational balance” (D’Almeida & Libaert, 2014). Juholin, Aberg and Aula (2014) assert that this notion of balance that internal communication aims at can also be found in the articulation of open information sharing, sense-making interactions, community building and shared responsibility. A section of researchers particularly concentrates on one of the two dimensions which makes understanding the perspectives easy. A transactional focus is the other approach that can also emphasize on the relational aspect of internal communication. It is thus suggested by Welch and Jackson (2007) in their stakeholder understanding of internal communication as “the strategic management of interactions and relationships between stakeholders at all levels within the organization.” 15 Communications may be defined as systems and technology employed for receiving and sending messages. Communications may consist of emails, surveys, newsletter, suggestion boxes and circulation materials. Hatch (1964) and Clampitt and Downs (1987) opine that the focus of organizational communication is on connecting individual employees, groups and the entire organization to facilitate the attainment of common interest and spontaneous cooperation. Supportive employees are really facilitated by organizational communication (De Ridder, 2004). Primarily, organizations are communicating entities (Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis 2005). According to the study undertaken by Wyatt (2007-08) which was quoted by Trahant (2008), there is a strong association between high level of organizational performance and effective employee communication. 2.2.1 Factors of Internal Communication identified As stated earlier, internal communication has both informational and relational dimensions. However, in their research on Delhi International airport, Balakrishnan et al. (2013) identified the five categories of communication allowing employee engagement and this brings an intriguing clarity to the association between employee engagement and internal communication. A lot of parallels are also made with the conceptual model of internal communication leading to Ruck and Welch’s developed employee engagement (Ruck et al., 2012). A sixth factor, team climate, is added to this model because it is seemingly essential. 2.2.1.1 Superior-subordinate communication This factor concerns employees describing a positive communication with their managers as it comprises of “exchanges of encouragement, understanding, and fairness” (Balakrishnan et al., 2013, p.4). The perceived organizational support is an important antecedent of both organization and job engagement (Saks, 2006) with an emphasis on the crucial supportive role of the front-line 16 supervisor (Ruck et al., 2012; Welch & Jackson, 2007; Saks, 2006). In the view of Farndale and Murrer (2014), feedback is an indispensable element of communication between superior(s) and subordinate(s) especially concerning employee’s performance. 2.2.1.2 Quality of information This pertains to the employees’ satisfaction of how the management communicates about the organization’s goals, activities and job requirements. This factor is about the information being transparent and clear. There is evidence to prove that sharing consistent and clear information by the managers to the employees help engage employees and enable them better appreciate the organization’s goals (Welch & Jackson, 2007; Saks, 2006, Guzley, 1992). Argenti (1998) asserts that “enlightened managers know that the more information they provide to employees, the more likely these employees are to be highly motivated to do a better job, to advance in their positions, and to further the goals of the organization itself.” 2.2.1.3 Superior openness This factor corresponds to the ways in which managers disseminate information to the employees. The honesty and openness of this information relay is dependent on the employees. Welch and Jackson (2007) opines that employees are deemed to have preference for face-to-face communication. 2.2.1.4 Opportunities for upward communication This relates to the possibility for the views and ideas of employees to be listened to and considered by the organization. According to Ruck et al. (2012), a basic element of engaging employees is the voice expression and impact of employees. Another key tool for promoting employee engagement is ensuring employee participation in decision-making. 17 2.2.1.5 Reliability of information This concerns how dependable and credible the information provided by the managers and coworkers conforms to the employees. 2.2.1.6 Team climate This depends only relations between colleagues. It pertains to the respect, the tolerance and the overall positive understanding of mutual relations prevailing among all staff members (Bakker, Schaufeli, Demerouti and Eeuwema, 2006). 2.3 Relationship between Internal Communication and Employee Engagement Employee engagement has been researched diversely in public relations. It has varied operationalizations and is defined with several terms. The term, engagement, encompasses a wide range of organizational attempts to incorporate stakeholders in the organization’s decisions and activities. Irrespective of its numerous and seemingly contradictory definitions, many studies conducted found a strong relationship between employee engagement, organizational efficiency and productivity and performance of workforce. The essential elements that drive employee engagement consist of recognition of one’s work, nature of the job and work environment, personality traits, social climate as well as internal communication, which is the most pertinent particularly in this study. Again, employee engagement can be promoted by many factors not excluding effective communication, clear understanding of organization's goals, recognition, rewards, career development, accountability, employees’ input in decision making, coaching, management’s 18 interest in employees’ welfare, satisfaction, meaningful work, opinion surveys, alignment with organization's values, perceived safety, challenging work, adequate resources, autonomy, and individual attention (Baumruk et al., 2006; Kahn, 1990; & Woodruffe, 2006) and it is through internal communication that these factors can be communicated, disseminated and corroborated. However, the relationship between employee engagement and internal communication, though relevant, generally lack adequate research (Ruck & Trainor, 2012; Welch, 2012). Furthermore, many studies have though stressed the benefits of the association between the two concepts, their connection has largely not been researched empirically. Studies, here, is aimed at examining the two concepts as uni-dimensional (Karanges, Johnston, Beatson, & Lings, 2015). As a result, Tkalac Verčič (2016) in her studies, examined the multidimensional relationship between the two concepts (Tkalac Verčič, Pološki Vokić, & Sinčić Ćorić, 2009; and Schaufeli, Salanova, González- Roma, & Bakker, 2002). In her research, Tkalac Verčič (2016) used a survey, correlation and regression analysis and resolved that internal communication satisfaction has a significant role in high employee engagement by giving empirical proof that internal communication satisfaction which is the effect of effective internal communication is the causative factor of employee engagement, and this corroborates earlier findings (Karanges et al., 2015). This assertion aligns with the opinion of Ruck and Welch’s (2012) that employee engagement is impacted by internal corporate communication and team management communication, and the findings of Watson Wyat (2007 cited in Ruck et al., 2012) as well that organizations that ensure effective communication with their employees had exceedingly much potential of having high levels of employee engagement. 19 With regards to key elements of internal communication that impact employee engagement, Tkalac Verčič (2016) realized that communication during meetings, informal communication and satisfaction with feedback are the most important dimensions of internal communication satisfaction for employee engagement. Her findings affirmed the findings of previous studies that that the following are crucial in ensuring and enhancing employee engagement: communication between managers and employees, dissemination of information with employees, open channels of communication, and feedback (Caesens, Stinglhamber & Luypaert, 2014; Agarwal, Datta, Blake-Beard & Bhargava, 2012; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; and Durkin, 2007). Nevertheless, though the outcome of her study suggested a causal connection between internal communication and employee engagement with internal communication mostly regarded as resulting in employee engagement (Ruck et al., 2012), the key realization is that the two concepts provide support for each other in a continuous virtual circle. Supervisors and managers must be made to know the role of internal communication in promoting employee engagement. Nonetheless, since there exist several situational and organizational factors likewise individual disparities, that impact employee engagement or disengagement, they have to know that the factors that drive employee engagement is broad (Ruck et al., 2012; Kahn, 1990). With the job demand-resource model used by Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli (2001) in the study, job resources that trigger processes that lead to employee engagement are as follows: coaching, autonomy, performance feedback and social support, not excluding personal resources like self-esteem, optimism and self-efficacy (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Tkalac Verčič (2016) asserts that internal communication is an indispensable job resource because it increases the 20 importance of employee engagement. Despite that, organizational practices of internal communication are supposed to be appropriate and acceptable for internal stakeholders to contribute to employee engagement (Welch, 2012). Besides, until managers and supervisors come to the realization of how crucial internal communication is in promoting the activities of organizations, employee engagement is not likely to improve (Ruck et al., 2012). It is therefore that required of managers to know that the acquisition of engaged employees is more difficult than changing products and their prices (Macey et al., 2008). Additionally, an organization experiences negative outcome in most or all aspects of its work if there is silence in the organization (Hoover, 2005). The effect of this is that employees are bound to speculate and seek information about their organization from such entities outside the organization as the media. As a result, mere communication though any organization’s aim is to ensure effective communication. To sustain an organization especially in difficult and transition periods, communication is very key. This is affirmed by Hoover (2005) who emphasized that, "even in a time of crisis, good communication keeps employees engaged and the organization moving forward." However, the in-existence of communication can result in a "disparity between what employees hear from their manager and what they see in the media, it leads to distracted, de- motivated employees who feel a lack of trust caused by lack of transparency -whether that is real or perceived" (Hoover, 2005). Organizations have the tendency to be very effective if they develop a communication plan that focuses on internal transmission of information and media to help ensure they evolve around external messaging. Five steps are outlined by Baumruk et al. (2006) to increasing communication and engagement, and they are as follows: “frequent and scheduled interaction and sharing of information, feedback and ideas with the ultimate step being listen, understand and respond 21 appropriately”. In fact, even at a basic level, the importance of internal communication in engaging employees can be actualized. Indeed, there is a positive correlation between employee engagement and internal communication and this is affirmed by the studies conducted by practitioners and researchers over the years. Employee engagement seems to be the purpose for internal communication. Mishra, Boynton & Mishra (2014) opines that it is the main purpose whereas Shuck and Wollard (2010) argue that employee engagement is the one that results from a series of goals that corresponds to the required behavioral, cognitive and emotional states directed towards the organization’s aspirations which an engaged employee has. According to Welch and Jackson (2007), these lesser goals are “contributing to internal relationships characterized by employee commitment, promoting a positive sense of belonging in employees, developing their awareness of environmental change and developing their understanding of the need of the organization to evolve its aims in response to, or in anticipation of environmental change.” To enable employee engagement, the organization can depend on particular job characteristics associated with social, psychological, physical, or organization levels. Farndale et al. (2014) asserts that these ‘resources’ confirm the elements of internal communication already established as connected to employee engagement as they correspond to the realization of work goals, the employee’s welfare and the personal learning of the employee. Through effective and well-planed communication, opportunity exists to create engagement at level of employee’s development within the organization (Argenti, 1998). Informal interactions among employees, which majority of researchers in internal communication ignore, is actually associated with the team climate that is identified as a vital part of employee engagement. Bakker et al. (2006) define team climate as how the members of the team “construe themselves as interrelated to others rather than as independent and unique.” They stress that 22 elements of employee engagement like empathy towards colleagues and frequent interactions as well, where team members share and confront their views are very crucial. Several experts and researchers acknowledge the contribution of internal communication to a positive atmosphere within the organization fostering such team values as respect or solidarity; thus, it is reasonable to bring this organizational and psychological notion to internal communication (Ely, 2015; Fouquier & Cannemela Camel, 2010; Argenti, 1998). 23 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 3.0 Chapter Overview This chapter deals with the various procedures that were used in conducting the study. It covers the research method, sample, discussion and limitations. 3.1 Method This study employed meta-analysis to review empirical results (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins & Rothstein, 2009; Hunter and Schmidt, 2004; Lipsey and Wilson, 2001). With increasing number of journals and online platforms for publishing working papers as well as the general availability of results of studies via the internet, meta-analysis is the most suitable tool for aggregating empirical findings and explore the present knowledge of a particular subject (Stanley, 2001). The objective of this method is to identify and review the relationship across several studies. 3.2 Sample In this study, the following were systematically searched: Google Scholar and Emerald using the keywords “employee engagement,” “internal communication,” “the influence of internal communication on employee engagement,” and “the impact of internal communication on employee engagement.” The search covered the period between 1990 and 2017, the following key journals in the field are International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Institute for Public Relations, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Emerald Group Publishing and International Organization of Scientific Research Journal. Then, the references listed in the studies included were cross-checked. 24 3.3 Discussion This meta‐analysis explored the relationship between internal communication and employee engagement. The study found strong support for the idea that when employees are given the opportunities to communicate effectively among themselves, and between the managers of organizations and the employees, they feel engaged and hence provide efficient services to ensure organizational success. In addition, the findings point out the absence of publication bias in this particular field of literature. Researchers benefit from the fact that a positive correlation between internal communication and employee engagement holds across varied studies. 3.4 Limitations This meta-analysis method employed for this study was limited as studies that were considered were available in English language only. Besides, the academic discourse on employee engagement takes place mostly in English, incorporating studies from diverse countries in Asia, Europe, Africa, and North America. As a result, this decision is deemed acceptable though that cannot resolve this limitation. Furthermore, the analysis of this study was limited to the connection between internal communication and employee engagement. This decision was taken because their relationship has been generally explored resulting in a good number of studies to be used for the analysis. 25 CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSION 4.0 Chapter overview This chapter deals with the conclusion and recommendations based on the analysis. 4.1 Conclusion This study contributes to the growing body of literature exploring the relationship between employee engagement and internal communication by proving that there is a positive correlation between the two concepts across studies. In the study, it can be realized that the literature on the concepts do not suffer from publication bias. In addition, the findings of this study provide a strong support for the idea that when employees are given the opportunities to communicate effectively among themselves, and between the managers of organizations and the employees, they feel engaged and hence provide efficient services to ensure organizational success. 4.2 Recommendations Based on the findings and conclusions drawn from the study, it is important for managers of organizations and business as well as practitioners to invest much efforts and attention on ensuring effective communication with employees. Practicing this all-important phenomenon particularly in this present, highly competitive business environment will cause employees to feel part of and valuable in the organization and hence engage their entire beings. The eventual result of this is the organizational success and survival; thus, effective internal communication in an organization will inure to the organization’s benefit. Again, practitioners and managers of organizations should strive to create diverse means of ensuring internal communication to increase the level of engagement of their employees. 26 REFERENCES Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2011). Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions – The mediating role of work engagement. Career Development International, 17(3), 208-230. Alagaraja, M., & Shuck, B. (2015). Exploring organizational alignment-employee engagement linkages and impact on individual performance: A conceptual model. Human Resource Development Review, 14(1), 17-37. Allen, J. A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2013). Manager-led group meetings: A context for promoting employee engagement. Group & Organization Management, 38, 543- 569. doi:10.1177/1059601113503040 Anand, V., & Banu, C. (2011). Employee engagement: A research study with special reference to Rane Engine Valve Ltd. (Plant - I), Chennai, India. Journal of Marketing & Management, 2(2), 117-135. Retrieved from http://www.scipub.com/management-marketing Argenti, P.A. (1998). Strategic employee communications. Human Resource Management, 37 (3&4), 199-206. Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 265-269. doi:10.1177/0963721411414534 Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Lieke, L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 555- 564. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008 Bakker, A. B., Van Emmerik, H. & Eeuwema, M.C. (2006). Crossover of Burnout and Engagement in Work Teams. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 464-489. Bakker, A.B, Schaufeli, W.B, Leiter M.P., Taris, T.W ,2008, Work Engagement: An emerging concept in occupational psychology. Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 209-223. Balakrishnan, C., & Masthan, D. (2013). Impact of Internal Communication on Employee Engagement: A Study at Delhi International Airport. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 3. Baron, A. (2012). What do engagement measures really mean? Strategic HR Review, 12(1), 21-25. doi:10.1108/14754391311282450 http://www.scipub.com/management-marketing 27 Baumruk, R., Gorman, B., & Gorman, E. (2006). Why managers are cruicial to increasing engagement. 25-27. Borenstein, M, Hedges, L.V., Higgins J. P., & Rothstein, H.R. (2009). Introduction to Meta‐ Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Buckingham, M., & Vosburgh, R. M. (2001). The 21st century human resources function: It's the talent, stupid! Human Resource Planning, 24(4). Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Luypaert, G. (2014). The impact of work engagement and workaholism on well-being – The role of work-related social support. Career Development International, 19(7), 813-835. Catlette, B., & Hadden, R. (2001). Contented cows give better milk: The plain truth about employee relations and your bottom line. Saltillo Press. Cattermole, G., Johnson, J., & Jackson, D. (2014). Employee engagement creates a brighter economic future at Jupiter Hotels. Strategic HR Review, 13(2), 81-85. doi:10.1108/SHR-11-2013-0110 Choo, L. S., Mat, N., & Al-Omari, M. (2013). Organizational practices and employee engagement: A case of Malaysia electronics manufacturing firms. Business Strategy Series, 14(1), 3-10. doi:10.1108/17515631311295659 Clampitt, P and Downs, C.W. (1987) Communication Satisfaction: A Review of the literature. University of Kansas. D’Almeida, N. & Libaert, T. (2014). La communication interne des entreprises (7th ed.). Paris, France: Dunod De Ridder, A. (2004). Organisational communication and supportive employees. Human Resources Management Journal, 14(3), 20-30. DeBussy, N., Ewing, M., & Pitt, L. (2003). Stakeholder theory and internal marketing communications: A framework for analysing the influence of new media. Journal of Marketing Communications, 9, 147-161. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands- resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. Durkin, D. (2007). How loyalty and employee engagement add up to corporate profits. Chief Learning Officer, 6(11), 30-34. Ely, F. (2015). Utopie de la communication interne: vers une “maïeutique managériale de la confiance » dans l’organisation vertueuse. Communication et organisation, 47, 196-215. Fairlie, P. (2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes: Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 508-525. 28 Fouquier, E. & Cannamela Cannel, E. (2010). La communication interne, nouveau “soft power”. L’Expansion Management Review, 4(139), 114-122. Gaither, C. (2012). The role of Internal Communication and the Effect on Employee Engagement. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Capstones.Paper 2, 2-13. Gupta, N. & Sharma, V. (2016). The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement and Its Linkage to Organizational Performance: A Conceptual Model. The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 59-68. Guzley, R.M. (1992). Organizational climate and communication climate. Management Communication Quarterly, 5(4), 379-402. Harley, A., Lee, D., & Robinson, D. (2005). How 02 built the business case for engagement. Strategic HR Review, 4(6), 24-27. Harter, J.K., F.L. Schmidt & T.L. Hayes (2002), Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. Hatch, A.S. (1964), Improving Boss-Man and Man-Boss communication, Mangers role in organizational communication, Psychological Review, 100, 68–90. Hoover, G. (2005). Maintaining employee engagement when communicating difficult issues. Communication World, Nov-Dec, 25-27. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Juholin, A. Aberg, L. & Aula, P. (2014). Towards a responsible dialogue: Searching for the Missing Piece of Strategic Employee Communication. Paper presented at EUPRERA Conference “Communication Ethics in a Connected World”, Brussels, September 2014. Kahn W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 692-724. Karanges, E., Johnston, K., Beatson, A., & Lings, I. (2015). The influence of internal communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 129-131. Karanges,E.R. (2014). Optimising employee engagement with internal communication: Social exchange perspective. 14-141. Kumar, R., & Sia, S. K. (2012). Employee engagement explicating the contribution of work environment. Management and Labour Studies, 37, 31-43. doi:10.1177/0258042X1103700104 29 Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Macey, W.H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3-30. Marrelli, A. F. (2011). Employee engagement and performance management in the federal sector. Performance Improvement, 50(5), 5-13. doi:10.1002/pfi.20216 Maslach, C., Schaufeli,W.B. ,& Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 397-422. Mishra, K., Boynton, L. & Mishra A. (2014). Driving Employee Engagement: The Expanded Role of Internal Communications. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(2), 183-202. doi:10.1177/2329488414525399 Pater, R., & Lewis, C. (2012). Strategies for leading engagement. Professional Safety, 57(5), 32-35. Retrieved from www.asse.org Robertson-Smith, G., & Markwick, C. (2009). Employee engagement: A review of current thinking. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies. Robinson, D., Perryman, S & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement. Institute for Employment Studies, 1-40. Ruck, K., & Trainor, S. (2012). Developing Internal Communication Practice That Supports Employee Engagement. Retrieved from: http://www.pracademy.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Developing-Internal-Communication-Practice-That-Supports- Employee-Engagement-July-2012.pdf, 1-25. Ruck, K., & Welch, M. (2012). Valuing internal communication: management and employee perspective. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 294-302. Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 600-619. Sambrook, S. A., Jones, N., & Doloriert, C. (2014). Employee engagement and autoethnography: Being and studying self. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26, 172-187. doi:10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0072 Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92. Shuck, B. & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 1(9), 89-110. http://www.asse.org/ http://www.pracademy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Developing-Internal-Communication-Practice-That-Supports-Employee-Engagement-July-2012.pdf http://www.pracademy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Developing-Internal-Communication-Practice-That-Supports-Employee-Engagement-July-2012.pdf http://www.pracademy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Developing-Internal-Communication-Practice-That-Supports-Employee-Engagement-July-2012.pdf 30 Shuck, B., & Herd, A. M. (2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 156-181. doi:10.1177/1534484312438211 Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G. (2014). Employee engagement and well-being a moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 43-58. doi:10.1177/1548051813494240 Shuck, B., & Rose, K. (2013). Reframing employee engagement within the context of meaning and purpose: Implications for HRD. Advances in Developing Human 109. Resources, 15, 341-355. doi:10.1177/1523422313503235 Stanley, T. D. (2001). Wheat from chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of economic perspectives, 15(3), 131-150. Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 322-337. doi:10.1177/1069072711436160 Subramoniam, K. (2013). A study on employee passion in public sector banks. SDMIMD Journal of Management, 4, 30-36. Retrieved from sdmimdjournal.in/ Tkalac Verčič, A. (2016). Exploring the connection between internal communication and employee engagement. Institute for Public Relations, University of Zagreb. Retrieved from https://instituteforpr.org/exploring-connection-internal-communication-employee- engagement/ Tkalac Verčič, A. (2016). Exploring the connection between internal communication and employee engagement. Institute for Public Relations, University of Zagreb. Retrieved from https://instituteforpr.org/exploring-connection-internal-communication-employee- engagement/ Tkalac Verčič, A., Pološki Vokić, N., & Sinčić Ćorić, D. (2009). Razvoj mjernog instrumenta za procjenu zadovoljstva internom komunikacijom. Društvena istraživanja, 18(1-2), 175-202. Tkalac Verčič, A., Pološki Vokić, N., & Sinčić Ćorić, D. (2009). Razvoj mjernog instrumenta za procjenu zadovoljstva internom komunikacijom. Društvena istraživanja, 18(1-2), 175-202. Tkalac Verčič, A., Verčič, D. & Sriramesh, K. (2012). Internal communication: Definition, Parameters, and the Future. Public Relations Review, 38, 223-230. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.019 Trahant B, (2008), Six Communication Secrets of Top-Performing Organizations, The Public Manager, fall 2008, p. 68-75. https://instituteforpr.org/exploring-connection-internal-communication-employee-engagement/ https://instituteforpr.org/exploring-connection-internal-communication-employee-engagement/ https://instituteforpr.org/exploring-connection-internal-communication-employee-engagement/ https://instituteforpr.org/exploring-connection-internal-communication-employee-engagement/ 31 Ulrich, D. (1997). Measuring human resources: an overview of practice and a prescription for results. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 36(3), 303-320. Vigoda-Gadot, E., Eldor, L., & Schohat, L. M. (2013). Engage them to public service conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 518-538. doi:10.1177/0275074012450943 Watson Wyatt Worldwide. (2004). Connecting organizational communication to financial performance: 2003/2004 communication ROI study (Catalog No. w-698). Welch, M. (2012). Appropriateness and acceptability: Employee perspectives of internal communication. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 246-254. Welch, M., & Jackson, P.R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Communications, 177-198. Wollard, K. K. (2011). Quiet desperation another perspective on employee engagement. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 526-537. doi:10.1177/1523422311430942 Woodruffe, C. (2006). Employee engagement: the real secret of winning a crucial edge over your rivals. British Journal of Administrative Management, Dec-Jan (50), 28-29. Yates, K. (2006). Internal communication effectiveness enhances bottom-line results. Journal of Organizational Excellence, Summer, 71-79.