ANNA ROGALA

SYLWESTER BIALOWAS

COMMUNICATION
IN ORGANIZATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTS
Functions, Determinants
and Areas of Influence
Communication in Organizational Environments
 Anna Rogala • Sylwester Bialowas

Communication in
Organizational
Environments
Functions, Determinants and Areas of Influence
Anna Rogala Sylwester Bialowas
Poznan University of Economics Poznan University of Economics
Poznan, Poland Poznan, Poland

ISBN 978-1-137-54701-9 ISBN 978-1-137-54703-3 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54703-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016950062

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd. London
To my husband, Sebastian, my daughter, Julianna, and my parents,
Bożena and Eugeniusz—Anna
To Ania—Sylwester
 Personal Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Prof.

Bogna Pilarczyk for her continuous support throughout my research,
especially for her patience and for motivating me. Her guidance and rec-
ommendations were invaluable.
I would like to thank my colleagues from the Department of Marketing
Strategies at the Poznań University of Economics, especially Renata and
Ewa, for their encouragement, insightful comments, and support.
My sincere thanks also go to Ewa Grzywaczewska-Stewart for her thor-
ough and high-quality work which goes far beyond normal translation.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my beloved family: my husband,
Sebastian, my daughter, Julianna, my parents, Bożena and Eugeniusz, my
sister, Agnieszka, my grandmother, Anna, and my parents-in law, Maria
and Stanisław, for supporting me spiritually throughout writing this book.

Anna Rogala

There are many individuals who have helped me and encouraged me in my

work. My warmest thanks go to all of them. I would like to acknowledge
my family: my wife, Ania, my daughter, Maja, and my son, Wiktor, as well
as my parents, Alina and Tadeusz. Thank you for your continued support.

Sylwester Bialowas
vii
 Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Polish National Science Center

resources, granted on the basis of the decision number DEC-2011/03/N/
HS4/00701.
This publication was supported by the Dean of the Faculty of Poznan
University of Economics.

ix
 Contents

1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 1

1.1 Etymology of the Term “Communication” 1
1.2 Traditions and Theoretical Orientations
in Communication Science 9
1.3 Models of the Communication Process 15
References 26

2 Internal Communication in an Organization 29

2.1 Organizational Environment 29
2.2 Types of Communication Needs in an Enterprise 35
2.3 The Essence of Communication within
an Organization 38
2.4 Types of Information in an Organization 44
2.5 Organizing Communication in an Enterprise 47
2.5.1 The Levels, Directions, and Forms
of Communication in Organizations 47
2.5.2 Instruments for Communication
in Enterprises 55
References 61

xi
xii Contents

3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 65

3.1 The Systematization of Internal Communication
Objectives 65
3.2 The Functions of Internal Communication 72
3.3 The Realization of Internal Communication
Objectives in Organizations in the Light of Research 75
3.3.1 Research Methodology 76
3.3.2 Assessment of the Realization of Internal
Communication Objectives 81
3.4 Barriers and Obstacles to Internal Communication 89
References 94

4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 99

4.1 The Essence and the Basic Determinants
of Organizational Behaviour 99
4.2 Types of Organizational Behaviour 103
4.3 Typology of Employees’ Communication Behaviours 108
4.4 Determinants of Individual Communication
Behaviours in an Organization 118
4.5 Factors Determining Communication Behaviours
of the Employees 133
References 147

5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 151

5.1 Reference Points for the Evaluation of Communication
in Organizations 151
5.2 Components for the Evaluation of Internal
Communication: An Integrated Approach 156
5.3 The Essence, Types and Principles
of a Communication Audit 167
5.4 A Model of Interdependence Between the Conditions
of Internal Communication and Its Effectiveness 170
5.5 The Assumptions of an Integrated Index
for the Assessment of Internal Communication
Effectiveness 188
References 203
 Contents xiii

6 Internal and External Communication:

In Search of Coherence 207
6.1 The Role of Communication in Internal Marketing,
Personnel Marketing and Internal Public Relations 208
6.2 The Importance of Communication in an Organization
Regarding Marketing Communications Activities 214
6.3 Interdependence Between Internal and External
Communication 220
6.4 The Significance of Internal Communication
for the Internal and External Marketing
of Organizations: Research Results 223
6.5 Towards a New Paradigm of Corporate
Communication? 240
References 246

Index 251
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 K. Lewin’s flow of information model 17

Fig. 1.2 H. D. Lasswell’s model of persuasive communication 17
Fig. 1.3 C. Shannon and W. Weaver’s model of communication 18
Fig. 1.4 P. Watzlawick, J. Beavin, and D. Jackson’s model
of communication 20
Fig. 1.5 W. Schramm’s model of shared experience 21
Fig. 1.6 P. Lazarsfeld and E. Katz’s two-step flow of communication 22
Fig. 1.7 B. Westley and M. MacLean’s model of mass communication 23
Fig. 1.8 Riley and Riley’s sociological model 23
Fig. 1.9 D. K. Berlo’s SMCR communication model 24
Fig. 1.10 The concentric HUB model 25
Fig. 2.1 An organization as a socio-technical system:
H. Leavitt’s model 31
Fig. 2.2 McKinsey 7S model 32
Fig. 2.3 Communication pyramid (levels) according to McQuail 48
Fig. 3.1 Hierarchy of the importance of internal communication
objectives 82
Fig. 3.2 The importance of internal communication objectives
for specific segments 88
Fig. 4.1 Basic organizational behaviour model 102
Fig. 4.2 Determinants of organizational behaviour 104
Fig. 4.3 The impact of selected determinants on the effectiveness
of internal communication 134

xv
xvi List of Figures

Fig. 4.4 The influence of specific factors on the effectiveness

of communication in the defined employee
segments—deviations from mean values 141
Fig. 4.5 Assessment of using groups of instruments for internal
communication (mean values on a scale from 1 to 5, where
1 means definitely poor use and 5 means definitely good use) 143
Fig. 4.6 Respondents’ assessment of the use of specific internal
communication tools 144
Fig. 4.7 Popularity of communication tools in the defined employee
segments—deviations from mean values 145
Fig. 5.1 Factors determining the effectiveness of internal
communication according to focus group participants 177
Fig. 5.2 A model of communication within an organization 184
Fig. 5.3 Model of relationships between internal communication
determinants and its effectiveness 186
Fig. 6.1 The significance of internal communication
for selected aspects of organizations’ operations in the
opinion of employees, and an assessment of the impact
of internal communication on these aspects
in their companies 223
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Ways of defining the essence of the term “communication” 3

Table 2.1 Definitions of the term “internal communication” 41
Table 2.2 Instruments of internal communication 58
Table 3.1 Objectives of internal communication according
to the direction of information flow in an organization 69
Table 3.2 Characteristics connected with assigning relatively greater
importance to specific objectives 84
Table 3.3 Hierarchies in the importance of internal communication
objectives for selected segments 86
Table 3.4 Average ratings of internal communication objectives
for specific segments 87
Table 3.5 Classification of barriers to organizational communication 91
Table 3.6 Factors which in the opinions of the respondents hinder
the implementation of specific internal communication
objectives 93
Table 4.1 Definitions of organizational behaviour 101
Table 4.2 Patterns of organizational behaviour in terms
of the relationships between the sender and recipient
of information 108
Table 4.3 Types of communicational personalities 111
Table 4.4 The consequences of assertive, aggressive,
and passive behaviour 112
Table 4.5 Typology of communicative behaviours for individuals
in organizations 115

xvii
xviii List of Tables

Table 4.6 Possible combinations of communication (in)competence 124

Table 4.7 Differences in the hierarchy of importance for the
determinants of internal communicative effectiveness
with regard to the management level 135
Table 4.8 Differences in the hierarchy of importance for the
determinants of internal communicative effectiveness
with regard to the sector 137
Table 4.9 Differences in the hierarchy of importance for the
determinants of internal communicative effectiveness
with regard to education 139
Table 4.10 Differences in hierarchy of importance for the determinants
of internal communicative effectiveness with regard to age 140
Table 5.1 Selected opinions of focus group participants on their
understanding of internal communication effectiveness 172
Table 5.2 Factors influencing the effectiveness of internal
communication according to focus group participants 175
Table 5.3 Pearson’s R correlation coefficients between different
categories of efficiency and overall efficiency assessment 179
Table 5.4 Pearson’s R correlation coefficients between different
categories of efficiency, overall efficiency, arithmetic
mean, and the weighted average of internal communication
effectiveness 180
Table 5.5 Pearson’s R correlation coefficients between the
assessment of the degree of achievement regarding internal
communication objectives, the arithmetic mean of internal
communication effectiveness, and the assessment of overall
communication quality 182
Table 5.6 Pearson’s R correlation coefficients between the means of
internal communication efficiency, quality, and effectiveness 183
Table 5.7 The instrument used for constructing a standardized index of
satisfaction with the achievement of internal communication
objectives 189
Table 5.8 Measuring instrument for the integrated index of internal
communication assessment 192
Table 5.9 Integrated index of internal communication assessment 196
Table 5.10 Ranking of the components of the integrated internal
communication assessment index according to the level
of dissatisfaction 200
 List of Tables xix

Table 6.1 A summary of selected definitions of internal marketing,

personnel marketing and internal public relations 209
Table 6.2 The most important objectives for an organization’s
communications 217
Table 6.3 The associations of focus group participants relating
to their company’s image and the values which are
esteemed in their organisation 225
Table 6.4 Selected opinions of focus group participants on the
internal and external image of the represented companies 229
Table 6.5 Attitudes most commonly manifested by respondents
in the cartoon test 231
Table 6.6 Assessment of coherence between internal and external
communication 232
Table 6.7 Pearson’s r-correlation coefficients between the achievement
of internal communication objectives and the coherence
of internal and external communication 234
Table 6.8 Hierarchy of importance of internal marketing
communication objectives (the lower the value, the more
important the objective) 237
Table 6.9 Regression model for the comprehensive effectiveness of
internal communication 238
Table 6.10 Regression model for the comprehensive effectiveness of
internal communication – Balanced segment 239
Table 6.11 Regression model for the comprehensive effectiveness of
internal communication – Relationship-oriented segment 239
Table 6.12 Regression model for the comprehensive effectiveness of
internal communication – Task-oriented segment 239
 Introduction

Communication is the basis for the functioning of every company, being

a key element of all actions undertaken. This is because any coopera-
tion between the staff always requires communication. It is important
to remember that communication in an organization is not only a sim-
ple transfer of the information necessary for employees to perform their
duties but also affects the relationships between employees, their motiva-
tion, job satisfaction, commitment, energy, and efficiency. Any disrup-
tion to communication exerts a negative impact on the functioning of an
organization. Therefore, the effectiveness of communication processes in
enterprises and the factors which determine them are extremely impor-
tant aspects. This effectiveness is usually viewed through the prism of
congruity between the message transmitted by the sender and that which
is received by the addressee. However, taking into account the tasks and
objectives set for internal communication, the degree of their implemen-
tation also ought to be analysed. Thus, the concept of the effectiveness
of internal communication is extended to include the causes behind the
message, on the one hand, and its consequences, on the other. The pri-
mary purpose of internal communication is to provide information, but
it also fulfils functions relating to control, motivation, as well as meeting
social needs.
Analysing and understanding communication requires combin-
ing knowledge from a number of disciplines: psychology, sociology,
xxi
xxii Introduction

philosophy, economics, organization and management theory, history,

ethnology, and even biology and cybernetics. The approaches to commu-
nication represented within each of them are, to a greater or lesser extent,
diverse because each of these disciplines provides a different perspective
for analysing the issue. In this book, communication is discussed from
the perspective of the theory of organization and management as well
as economics and psychology. Accordingly, the determinants of internal
communication are examined with regard to the organizational behav-
iour of individuals.
The scholarly literature concerning the areas researched in this book
is diversified. While issues relating to the behaviour of individuals in
organizations along with interpersonal and marketing communication
are frequently the subject of scientific studies, those concerning inter-
nal communication, its determinants, and effectiveness, as well as the
relationship between the effectiveness of communication within an
organization and external communication, rarely evoke the interest of
researchers. Internal communication is typically analysed in relation to
human resource management and internal public relations; it is rarely
considered as a separate process which significantly affects different
aspects regarding the functioning of organizations. The effectiveness of
internal communication and its measurement are very rarely discussed in
the literature, and in the majority of cases only in relation to the informa-
tional role of communication. Relatively few studies contain a compre-
hensive analysis of the determinants of the communication processes in
the workplace. Moreover, there is a shortage of research combining two
different approaches to internal communication: from the perspective
of management science and marketing. Few authors attempt to identify
the relationships and interdependence between the different objectives of
internal communication, as well as the mutual impact of communication
activities addressed to internal and external customers.
This monograph is an interdisciplinary, comprehensive study, deal-
ing with issues relating to communication in the corporate environ-
ment. The book contains a systematic literature review and includes the
authors’ own proposals for the systematization of internal communica-
tion objectives, the typology of communication behaviours in an organi-
zation, and a measurement instrument for verifying the effectiveness of
 Introduction xxiii

communication activities within an organization. Moreover, the authors

present the areas in which internal communication has a particular influ-
ence on an organization’s functioning, the networks of interrelations
between internal and external communication, and guidelines for the
management of internal communication in an organization. Another
significant merit of the book is testing the theories against the results of
the quantitative and qualitative research conducted. The proposed mono-
graph bridges a gap in the literature on the management of corporate
internal communication and combines scientific merit with the value of
application.
The book consists of six chapters. The first chapter discusses issues
that relate to the terms “communication” and “communicating” includ-
ing their etymology. The communication process is illustrated in terms of
a number of traditions in the field of communication theory: the socio-
psychological, cybernetic, rhetorical, semiotic, socio-cultural, critical,
and phenomenological traditions. Selected communication models are
analysed, those being most suitable from the point of view of communi-
cation inside an organization.
In the second chapter the authors discuss the communication environ-
ment of organizations, the types of their communication needs, as well
as the essence of communication within an organization. In this vein the
terms “internal communication” and “communication in an organiza-
tion” are analysed. The chapter also delineates types of information, levels
of communication, directions of communication, forms of communica-
tion, as well as the instruments of communication.
The third chapter presents a variety of approaches to systematizing
the objectives as well as defining the functions of communication in an
organization. The results of empirical research into the links and relation-
ships between the objectives and the functions of internal communica-
tion as well as the areas of their mutual influence are analysed. Moreover,
the authors indicate those factors that positively or negatively affect the
implementation of the objectives and the fulfilment of the functions of
communication in an organization. Furthermore, the objectives and
the functions of internal communication declared by organizations are
compared with those that are fulfilled and implemented in reality. Also,
xxiv Introduction

obstructions in the implementation of the objectives and the fulfilment

of the functions of internal communication are discussed.
The fourth chapter contains a detailed analysis of communication
behaviours by the employees of the companies researched in relation to
the theory of corporate behaviour, as well as psychological and sociologi-
cal knowledge about communication behaviours. In addition, the authors
propose a typology of communication behaviours. Other issues that are
discussed include the determinants of employees’ communication and
the impact of the growing popularity of mediated communication on the
above-mentioned behaviours. The authors point out the areas of greatest
concern and the difficulties of communication among the members of
organizations, as well as their preferences for the forms and instruments
of communication in the workplace.
The fifth chapter discusses issues that relate to the effectiveness of
internal communication from a praxeological point of view. In the light
of quantitative and qualitative research results, the authors analyse the
categories of efficiency, quality, and the effectiveness of corporate com-
munication, along with their components. They also propose a theoreti-
cal model that reveals the interdependence between the determinants of
internal communication and its effectiveness, along with presenting an
instrument to measure this—an evaluation sheet for the effectiveness of
internal communication, which provides an integrated index of internal
communication effectiveness. In addition, a list of factors that increase or
decrease the effectiveness of corporate communication is compiled. On
the basis of the conclusions, the model of corporate communication is
modified and updated.
In the sixth chapter the empirical research results are analysed in terms
of the interdependence between internal and external communication.
The authors present a systematization of the objectives of internal mar-
keting communication, as well as the conclusions concerning the degree
of their implementation. In addition, the relationship between commu-
nication activities inside an organization and those addressed to exter-
nal customers is discussed. Particular attention is paid to the following
issues: areas for building the external image of an organization, the role
of the sales staff in corporate communication, as well as the employees’
evaluation of communicating corporate values in company materials.
 Introduction xxv

Moreover, the authors present a regression model for the comprehensive

effectiveness of internal communication, which allows for the effective
allocation of resources for the improvement of the overall effectiveness of
internal communication. On the basis of the paradigm of integrated mar-
keting communication, the authors analyse the consistency of internal
and external communication in the areas defined earlier. Furthermore,
the chapter contains arguments for a change in the approach to corpo-
rate communication. Instead of internal and external communication, a
definition of corporate communication that is complex and coherent in
all its aspects is proposed.
The authors are aware that the discussions and analyses contained in
this book do not fully explain the determinants of the effectiveness of
internal communication, or its importance for communication activities
directed outside an organization. Further research is required to assess the
impact of the various determinants on the effectiveness of communica-
tion at the actual rather than declarative level. In addition, it is necessary
to examine the relationship between a company’s external image and the
effectiveness of internal as well as marketing communication addressed
to employees, and the influence of the former on the latter. It could also
be very interesting to conduct a detailed analysis of the impact of com-
munication in the workplace, especially in terms of its objectives relating
to information and motivation, on the attitudes of employees. Finally,
it would be worthwhile to explore the impact of cultural differences on
issues relating to the effectiveness of communication in organizations.
These issues will be undertaken in the course of further research.
 1
Theory of Communication: Evolution,
Approaches, Models

This chapter discusses issues relating to the etymology of the terms

“communication” and “communicating.” The communication pro-
cess will be shown in terms of various traditions in the area of com-
munication theory: socio-psychological, cybernetic, rhetorical, semiotic,
socio-cultural, critical, and phenomenological. Selected models of com-
munication, those most adequate from the point of view communication
inside an organization, will be analysed.

1.1 Etymology of the Term “Communication”

Communicating, which is one of the oldest social processes, is an inte-
gral part of every area of human life, both personal and professional.
Communication is a necessary condition for the existence of societies,
the activity of organizations as well as human existence in general, which
proves its fundamental importance for the efficient functioning of the
world. Depending on the adopted research perspective, the terms “com-
munication” and “communicating” are defined in a variety of ways as the
authors differently emphasize their individual components.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 1

A. Rogala, S. Bialowas, Communication in Organizational
Environments, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54703-3_1
2 Communication in Organizational Environments

The words “communicating” and “communication” have their roots

in Latin. The noun communicatio means “sharing, imparting,” whereas
the verb communico/communicare has two meanings: “to have some-
thing in common with someone, to share something with someone”
and “to offer something to someone, to give, to allow to participate,
to partake” (Potocki et  al. 2011, p.  28). When analysing the origin of
the two terms, one can also refer to the words communio, meaning “to
strengthen, reinforce, assure”; communis, meaning “common, universal,
generally accepted, ordinary”; and communitas, which means “commu-
nity” (Mikułowski-Pomorski 1988, pp. 63–64).
Over the years a number of different definitions of the word “com-
munication” have been proposed. Table 1.1 presents an overview, selected
for the purposes of this book, of ways of defining this concept, arranged
from the least to the most specific. In the most general terms, commu-
nication is understood as a process in which the sender sends a message
and the receiver receives it. However, taking into account the significance
and complexity of this process, it is necessary to create a more precise
definition, which would include the participants, the channel, as well as
the goals of communication. Particular attention should be given to the
reasons for which an act of communication is undertaken.
According to S.P.  Morreale, B.H.  Spitzberg, and J.K.  Barge (2007,
p. 31), the most useful definition should be considered to be one which
can be applied to different people and situations. These authors assume,
following L.R.  Frey, C.H.  Botan, and G.L.  Kreps, that communica-
tion “is the process of organising messages in order to create meaning.”
Messages are words, gestures, sounds, and activities that enable individu-
als to express themselves in relation to others as part of interaction. They
are expressed in a verbal or non-verbal way, but can also have a symbolic
character. In the context of communication, organizing is understood as
the process of formulating, receiving, and responding to verbal and non-
verbal messages; while meaning refers to the interpretation of a message,
that is, how it has been decoded or understood.
A. Awdiejew and Z. Nęcki (Nęcki 2000, p. 98) assume that commu-
nication is an exchange of verbal, vocal, and non-verbal signals (symbols)
undertaken in a particular context, and that its purpose is to achieve better
interaction between the participants of the process. Complementing this
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 3

Table 1.1 Ways of defining the essence of the term “communication”

Author Definition
J. Eicher “… the process of sending and receiving messages.”
K. Adams “The process of creating, sending, receiving and interpreting
G. J. Galanes messages between people.”
L. R. Frey “The process of organising messages in order to create
C. H. Botan meaning.”
G. L. Kreps
Ph. I. Morgan “The process of transmitting information from one person to
another or, more simply, the effort of assigning meaning.”
N. J. Adler “A complex, multi-layered and dynamic process through
which we exchange meanings.”
K. Weinsten “… conveying messages to others; it is both the process (how
I communicate) and the content (what I communicate); in
practice these two aspects are often inseparable.”
M. Andersen “A process in which a person, through the use of audible or
W. Lewis visual symbols, creates meaning for one or more listeners.”
J. Murray
D. A. Infante “Communication occurs when people manipulate (control)
A. S. Rancer symbols in order to stimulate meanings (sense, content) in
D. F. Womack other individuals, create understanding in other people.”
G. Miller “Communication occurs when events in one place and time
are closely linked with events in another place and time.”
G. R. Miller “Communication focuses on these events in which the source
emits a message to the recipient (recipients) with the
conscious intention of influencing their subsequent
behaviour.”
A. Awdiejew “Interpersonal communication is an exchange of verbal, vocal
Z. Nęcki and non-verbal signals (symbols) undertaken in a particular
context in order to achieve better interaction.”
B. Sobkowiak “Interpersonal communication is an exchange of verbal, vocal
and non-verbal signals (symbols) undertaken in a particular
context in order to achieve mutual understanding and,
consequently, better interaction.”
Leksykon “Social communication is a process of producing,
Politologii transforming and transmitting information between
(Lexicon of individuals, groups and social organizations. The aim of
politology) communication is the constant and dynamic shaping,
modification or change of knowledge, attitudes and
behaviours in accordance with the values and interests of
the interacting entities.”
Source: Own compilation (Based on: Adams and Galanes (2008, p. 63),
Antoszewski and Herbut (1995, p. 150), Eicher (1995, p. 23), Frydrychowicz
(2009, p. 33), Morreale et al. (2007, p. 31), Nęcki (2000, p. 98), Sikorski (2001,
pp. 192–193), Sobkowiak (2005, pp. 17–18), Stankiewicz (2006, p. 44),
Weinstein (1994, pp. 323–324))
4 Communication in Organizational Environments

definition, B. Sobkowiak (2005, pp. 17–18) adds the element of mutual

understanding, which was consciously rejected by Awdiejew and Nęcki.
In their opinion, the level of understanding between communication par-
ticipants is not objectively verifiable since it is subjectively assessed by the
sender and the recipient. By contrast, interaction requires some form of
action from the interlocutors, thus it can be observed and verified.
In most of the more specific definitions (e.g. those by Infante, Rancer
and Womack; Miller; and Awdiejew and Nęcki), the authors emphasize
the purpose of communication, which is evoking a specific meaning,
understanding, behaviour, or better interaction between the participants
of the process. Importantly, in addition to transferring information,
knowledge, feelings, emotions, or influencing behaviour, communica-
tion also helps create a sense of community and maintain social relation-
ships (Kulczycki 2012, p. 27). It has to be borne in mind that each of
the interlocutors has their own reasons for engaging in an act of commu-
nication. This may lead to a situation where the objective of the person
initiating the process will be achieved at the expense of the interests of the
recipient. Moreover, as rightly observed by K.E. Rosengren (2006, p. 1),
communication can also lead to conflict. The outcome does not have to
be agreement; it can also be an agreement to disagree on a given matter.
Typically, however, such an outcome for the process is unsatisfactory for
one or both parties.
Considering the definitions cited above, the authors assume that com-
munication is a complex and dynamic process, during which the sender
creates and transmits a message in a verbal, non-verbal, or symbolic form
to the receiver. The aim of the process, which can take place between
individuals, groups, or social organizations, is to produce a specific reac-
tion, intended by the sender, in the recipient of the message.
As mentioned earlier, the term “communication” is connected, and often
used interchangeably, with the term “communicating.” In the humanities
“communicating” is usually understood as the process through which
people communicate. It is important to point out, however, that the pro-
cess of communicating can be either unilateral, limited to imparting a
message by the sender to the recipient, or reciprocal, involving feedback,
which means that the recipient at some point becomes the sender, and
the interlocutors interact in the communication process. K.  Weinstein
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 5

(1994, pp. 323–324) argues, however, that without feedback it is difficult

to talk about communication at all, because by virtue of its intentional
nature and its objectives it requires the recipient’s response to the infor-
mation communicated. The authors of this work adopt the same view
because even a lack of response from the recipient is a kind of reaction,
although probably not the kind expected by the sender.
As regards terminology, an interesting fact is that very often, in every-
day language as well as in publications related to communication in
organizations, communicating is considered to be synonymous with
informing. It is assumed that in both cases the aim is the same, namely
transferring information from the sender to the receiver. Most probably,
such an attitude is largely caused by the popularity of information theory
and the related model of communication developed by C. Shannon and
W. Weaver (for more on this model see Sect. 1.3). However, it turns out
that the issue is more complex, as well as being vitally important, particu-
larly from the point of view of effective communication management in
an organization.
When analysing the differences between informing and communicat-
ing, researchers point to the different aims of these two processes, their
participants, as well as their reciprocal relationships. French scientists
are particularly active in this field. According to D. Weiss (as cited in:
Martyniak 1997, p.  5), informing and communicating have different
purposes. Informing involves transmitting and receiving structured data,
while in the process of communicating the purpose is to exchange infor-
mation aimed at changing someone’s consciousness. In turn, P. Joffre and
G. Koenig (as cited in: Bartoli 1994, p. 59) believe that in the process
of informing only the sender plays an active role, while in the process
of communicating the participants interact. This view is close to that of
researchers who distinguish between unilateral and reciprocal communi-
cation. A similar opinion is expressed by B. Galambaud (1988, p. 17),
who argues that informing occurs when there is a relationship between
individuals and facts, that is, the purpose of this process is to equip peo-
ple with relevant data. In contrast, communication requires establishing
relationships between the participants of the process, because its goals
go beyond the informative aspect. Whereas informing should equip the
members of an organization with knowledge of what is happening within
6 Communication in Organizational Environments

it, communicating creates a sense of belonging to the organization,

increases motivation, and builds relationships between its members
(Donjean 2006, pp. 69–70). The view that communication consists only
in conveying a message and, therefore, it can be equated to information
is also questioned by S. Deetz. In his critical theory of communication
he considers it to be the ongoing social construction of meaning, and
language to be the fundamental tool through which reality is created and
sustained (1995, p. 68).
Considering the notions of “informing” and “communicating” in a
broader organizational context, theorists tend to regard one of them as
superior. For instance, A. Bartoli (1994, p. 60) observes that communica-
tion is simultaneously the act, the object, and the means of transmitting
information. Consequently, she regards communication as superior in rela-
tion to information. Contrary views have been expressed by E. Lesca and
H. Lesca (1995, p. 30), according to whom communication is a process
of exchanging information between the sender and the receiver, and each
participant fulfils both roles in this process due to the giving and receiv-
ing of feedback. The authors also argue that communication is a form of
information, distinguishing among the flow of messages in an organiza-
tion between formalized and quantified information oriented to activities,
and often informal and verbal information oriented to interaction.
Despite the diversity of approaches to explaining the terms “communi-
cation” and “communicating,” researchers generally agree on the principal
characteristics of these terms. Based on the findings of communicology,1
B. Dobek-Ostrowska (2007, pp. 14–15) identifies the following distin-
guishing features of the communication process:

• social character,
• social context,
• purposefulness and consciousness,
• interactivity,
• dynamics,
• complexity,

1
Communicology—a field of academic studies classified under the humanities or social sciences
which studies, describes, or explains communication processes using an interdisciplinary research
approach and is considered an independent discipline.
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 7

• inevitability,
• irreversibility,
• symbolism,
• creativity,
• continuity.

Taking into account the fact that communication involves at least

two people and always takes place in a social environment, it is a spe-
cific social process. The sender and recipient must be mutually ori-
ented as well as being aware of their coexistence in a given situation.
Communication always takes place in a certain social context: interper-
sonal, group, institutional, public, mass, or intercultural, which in each
case is determined by the number and nature of the participants. In
principle, the process of communication is purposeful and conscious as
interlocutors’ actions stem from specific reasons. However, the objectives
of the sender and the receiver are not always conscious, overt, or easy to
determine. Specific relationships are formed between the participants in
an act of communication (e.g. partnership when the communication is
symmetrical, or domination and subordination when the communica-
tion is asymmetrical or complementary), which attests to the interactiv-
ity of the process. Communicating involves receiving, understanding,
and interpreting information, and therefore is dynamic. This process
is also characterized by complexity—it consists of many elements and
involves multiple stages: it can be one-sided or two-sided; verbal or non-
verbal; direct, indirect, or conveyed by media. The next two features of
communication are inevitability—everybody needs to communicate—
and irreversibility—because the process cannot be repeated, reversed, or
changed. Considering the fact that, when communicating, people use
different symbols and signs, communication is symbolic. Therefore, in
order to achieve mutual understanding of the participants there must be
semiotic community between them, understood as using the same sym-
bols and signs. Moreover, communication is a creative process, because
it involves constructing new concepts and enables the acquisition of
knowledge about the world. The final attribute of communication is
continuity because it lasts throughout a person’s life―from their
birth until their death.
8 Communication in Organizational Environments

Regardless of the adopted definition, communication involves two

types of participants—the sender and the receiver—and the process
consists of the following elements: communication, code, channel,
information gap, noise, feedback, and a system of reference (Potocki et al.
2011, p. 31). The sender is the initiator of the process, who creates a mes-
sage and sends it for a specific reason to the receiver, or the addressee of
the information. Due to the fact that the participants of the communica-
tion process are separate entities with specific, distinguishing characteris-
tics, the message sent will not be identical to the message received, which
significantly impedes effective communication. Therefore, the stage of
creating a message, that is, the physical form of the conveyed content,
should be approached with particular care. The form of the message is
determined by the personality and level of knowledge of the sender, their
experience, core values, social position, as well as their mood and atti-
tude towards the subject of communication. Using specific codes, the
sender converts the information into symbols that can be decoded by
the receiver, thus permitting understanding between the participants of
the process. A code is a system of meanings common for the representa-
tives of a given culture or sub-culture, which consists of signs and rules
(Fiske 1999, p. 36). These rules define how, in what combinations, and
in what context the signs can be used. The most commonly used code
is language, but in the communication process other codes can also be
used, including cognitive codes, action codes, paralinguistic codes (e.g.
Morse code), auxiliary codes (e.g. proxemic or kinesic), as well as social
codes (e.g. protocols or rituals). When the message is ready for transfer,
the sender selects an appropriate channel by means of which it will be
possible to send the message to the recipient. In the literature, a commu-
nication channel is defined as the route along which information travels
in the process of communication or, in other words, the way the sender
and the recipient communicate. Depending on the characteristics of the
message as well as the ease of encoding and disseminating information,
the following channels can be used: verbal, written, and visual (Potocki
et al. 2011, p. 33). Every act of communication takes place under cer-
tain conditions, in a particular system of reference, which means a con-
text. Depending on the specific situation, this system of reference either
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 9

affects the actions and behaviour of the participants or it remains neutral,

which can either help or hinder the process of communication. The next
elements in the communication process are interference (noise) and the
information gap. Noise can have its source in the external environment,
the psychological predispositions of the sender and the receiver, as well as
an incorrect use of signs and codes (so-called semantic noise) (Fiske 1999,
p. 23). The occurrence of various types of communication noise leads to
the emergence of the so-called information gap. It is defined as the dif-
ference between the message which the receiver would like to receive and
the one they actually get. The final element, but from the point of view of
communicative effectiveness the most important component of the com-
munication process, is feedback. It denotes the response of the recipient
to the decoded message from the sender which makes it possible to check
whether the message was correctly received and understood. Due to the
presence of feedback, communication takes on a transactional nature.
Concluding the discussion relating to terminology, one can say that
communication is usually defined in one of two ways: as a process of
sending a message from the sender to the receiver, or in terms of the ele-
ments necessary for the existence of meaning (Zalewska-Turzyńska 2012,
p. 25). In the former case, the functions of the elements and stages in the
process are defined. The latter approach, called structuralist, primarily
emphasizes the importance of the text, on the basis of which the remain-
ing aspects are analysed.

1.2 Traditions and Theoretical Orientations

in Communication Science
The issue of communication and communicating has been undertaken
by representatives of many scientific disciplines, from cyberneticists and
computer scientists to psychologists, sociologists, linguists, political sci-
entists, as well as those researching organization and management. The
variety of research perspectives related to this subject results in a sort
of information overload with regard to existing theories and models.
In order to better organize the many areas, analysing the processes of
10 Communication in Organizational Environments

communication and their modelling ought to refer to well-established

traditions in the field of communication theory. R.T. Craig enumerates
seven such traditions (1999, p. 119):

• the rhetorical tradition,

• the semiotic tradition,
• the phenomenological tradition,
• the cybernetic tradition,
• the socio-psychological tradition,
• the socio-cultural tradition,
• the critical tradition.

According to the rhetorical perspective, derived from the Greco-

Roman heritage, communication is understood as artful public speaking.
Particular attention is paid to the best possible, that is the most under-
standable and persuasive, ways of presenting ideas. At the core of this
tradition are the following beliefs (Griffin 2003, pp. 59–60):

• speech distinguishes humans from animals;

• public address delivered in a public forum is a more effective way of
solving political problems than rule by decree or resorting to force;
• the one-sidedness of communication—a single speaker tries to influence
an audience of many listeners through explicitly persuasive discourse;
• oratorical training is a cornerstone of every leader’s education;
• emphasis on the power and beauty of language to move people emo-
tionally and stir them into action through which it is possible to evoke
emotions and persuade people to take certain actions.

The final premise, somewhat incongruous in modern times, is that

public speaking was considered to be the province of men. On the one
hand, the rhetorical tradition is based on a number of generally accepted
beliefs about communication. On the other hand, however, it ques-
tions some other beliefs, such as the fact that words in themselves are
less important than deeds, or that true knowledge is more than a matter
of opinion (Craig 1999, p. 136). According to R.T. Craig, rhetoric is a
benchmark for the discipline of communication, while at the same time
illustrating the paradoxes associated with it.
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 11

In the semiotic tradition communication is treated as a process of shar-

ing meaning through signs. Representatives of this approach are of the
opinion that meanings are not in words or symbols but in people. They
are interested in how signs communicate meaning and how to use them
in order to avoid misunderstandings in communication (Griffin 2003,
p. 61). Communication processes are therefore perceived through semi-
otic relationships (Kulczycki 2012, p. 161). It should be noted that in
the semiotic tradition some researchers refer to the term semiology (e.g.
Ferdinand de Saussure), whereas others to the concept of semiotics (e.g.
Charles Sanders Peirce). In the former case signs are considered in rela-
tion to the social environment, while in the latter the focus is on the
structure of signs (Ollivier 2010, p. 59).
The semiotic theory of communication refers, among others, to the
following common beliefs (Craig 1999, p. 137):

• communication is easier if both sides communicate in the same

language;
• the same words can have different meanings for different people, thus
there is a constant risk of misunderstandings;
• meaning is often conveyed in an indirect way, for example through
non-verbal messages, which can go unnoticed.

In summary, the main area of research for semioticians and semiolo-

gists are signs, both verbal and non-verbal, as well as the meanings which
they mediate.
According to the phenomenological tradition, communication is expe-
riencing oneself and others through dialogue, with special attention being
given to the interpretation of the subjective experiences of an individual.
Communication practices make it possible to establish and sustain authen-
tic human relationships (Craig 1999, p. 138). One of the representatives
of this tradition, C. Rogers, formulated the conditions necessary for com-
munication. These include the following (Griffin 2003, pp. 66–67):

• congruence, which means the match between an individual’s inner

feelings and their outer display; for communication to be effective the
parties taking part in it should be authentic, and their verbal behaviour
should be consistent with their non-verbal behaviour;
12 Communication in Organizational Environments

• unconditional positive regard towards the interlocutor, that is, an atti-

tude of acceptance that is not contingent on performance; and
• empathetic understanding, that is, the ability to distance oneself from
one’s own beliefs or values to be able to listen to other people’s opin-
ions without prejudice and empathize with their emotions.

Clearly, in this case the communication process is understood as an

intentional dialogue, and its aim is the mutual understanding of the situ-
ation by the communicating participants (Kulczycki 2012, p. 165).
Another tradition in communication science as listed by R.T.  Craig
is the cybernetic tradition, initiated by N. Wiener. In this case, com-
munication is regarded as the flow of information from the source to the
destination. It is further assumed that, referring to the concept of feed-
back, communication is a bond that binds together separate parts of the
system (Griffin 2003, p. 57). A model developed within the cybernetic
approach by C. Shannon and W. Weaver is an integral part of the debate
on the communication process. These researchers indicate three levels of
problems that need to be analysed within the framework of communica-
tion research (Fiske 1999, pp. 22–23):

• level A—technical issues, that means answering the question of exactly

how communication symbols can be sent;
• level B—semantic issues, related to how precisely the symbols convey
the desired meaning;
• level C—effectiveness issues, that is, how effectively the received mean-
ing produces the desired behaviour.

Importantly, all three levels are interrelated and interdependent. The

research by the representatives of this tradition was based on the mathemati-
cal theory of information, and addressed the issue of the exchange of infor-
mation between machines and humans (Zalewska-Turzyńska 2012, p. 66).
In the socio-psychological perspective, communication is perceived
as an interpersonal influence. According to its representatives, the truth
about communication phenomena can be ascertained through system-
atic and thorough observation and identification of cause and effect
relationships. Identifying these relationships makes it possible to pre-
dict when a communicative behaviour will succeed and when it will fail
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 13

(Griffin 2003, p. 55). Thus, analysing communication consists in system-

atic observation and description, which should lead to the discovery of
the “essence” of the communication processes. The socio-psychological
tradition, being rooted in the empirical approach, involves trying to dis-
cover what is (Kulczycki 2012, p. 165). Communication is defined as a
process through which individuals in contact interact and influence one
another. Thus issues related to psychological predispositions, such as atti-
tude, emotional state, personality traits, unconscious conflicts, and living
conditions play a significant role (Craig 1999, p. 143).
In the socio-cultural tradition communication is the production and
reproduction of social reality. This tradition is based on the assumption
that the interlocutors create and recreate culture, and their vision of real-
ity is to a large extent shaped by the language they use. Accordingly, the
communication process is the production and reproduction of the social
order while simultaneously being a filter through which reality is expe-
rienced (Kulczycki 2012, p. 165). At the same time, reality is not only
created, but also refined or modified by this process.
Finally, the critical perspective sees communication as a reflective chal-
lenge of unjust discourse. Critical theorists challenge the following fea-
tures of contemporary society (Griffin 2003, pp. 64–65):

• the control of language to perpetuate power imbalances—the repre-

sentatives of this approach condemn any use of words that inhibits
emancipation;
• the role of mass media in dulling sensitivity to repression—television
and the Internet distract the attention of the audiences from their real
problems and interests;
• blind reliance on the scientific method and uncritical acceptance of
empirical findings, with particular criticism being waged against lead-
ers in government who use the empirical trappings of social science to
validate an unjust status-quo.

In the critical approach, authentic communication is not limited to

transmitting a message or sharing meanings. It happens only when there
is the process of discursive reflection moving towards transcendence. This
transcendence, however, can never be fully or conclusively reached (Craig
1999, p. 147).
14 Communication in Organizational Environments

Contemporary research into communication can be divided into two

distinct theoretical orientations, to which individual schools engaged
in this process are assigned. The first stream, empirical, concentrates on
issues relating to the needs, integration, motivation, adaptation, function,
durability, attitudes, and behaviours with regard to communication. The
representatives of this approach focus on the consequences of commu-
nication as a social phenomenon (Dobek-Ostrowska 2007, p. 54). This
orientation is represented by American functionalism, the uses and grati-
fications theory, the anthropological school (proxemic and kinesic theo-
ries), the psychological school of Palo Alto, interactionism, the agenda
setting theory, and Garbner’s cultivation theory. On the other hand, the
critical stream regards communication as a process conditioned by ideo-
logical or economic factors. Many concepts developed within this orien-
tation have been inspired by Marxism (ibid.). The critical stream includes
the Frankfurt School, Habermas’ theory of communicative action, the
political economy of communication, theories of hegemony, theories of
cultural imperialism, Cultural Studies, structuralism, and semiology. A
detailed discussion of each of these theories, although interesting from a
cognitive point of view, would require a separate chapter. Thus, in view
of the subject matter of this book, the authors will confine themselves to
indicating connections between them and the models of communication
presented in the next section of this chapter.
Considering the abundance of research approaches to the issue of com-
munication, the assertion by R.T. Craig about the existence of a theory
of communication is justified. It should be noted that the traditions dis-
cussed above do not necessarily constitute an exhaustive analysis as regards
trends in the research into the communication process. Undoubtedly,
though, each of them can be classified as an objective or interpretive
theory. The most objective, and therefore capable of explaining data and
making predictions, is thought to be the socio-psychological tradition.
In turn, the phenomenological tradition places the greatest emphasis
on interpretation, in that this helps an individual to be understood and
determine what should happen in the future (Griffin 2003, p. 68). When
analysing communication processes in an enterprise, researchers typically
refer to the findings of the cybernetic tradition at the level of inter-group
and organizational communication, as well as the socio-psychological
tradition in the case of interpersonal communication.
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 15

1.3 Models of the Communication Process

Numerous models of the communication process can be found in the lit-
erature, which are usually based on the findings of psychology, sociology,
and linguistics. According to the Dictionary of the Polish language (online
version, http://sjp.pwn.pl/szukaj/model), a model is “a construction,
diagram or description illustrating the working, composition, features
or relationships of a phenomenon or object.” A more precise definition
relating to a theoretical model is provided by the PWN Encyklopedia
(online version, http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo/3942517/model-
teoretyczny.html), according to which it is “a hypothetical construction
mapping a certain kind of reality in a simplified manner, showing its
features in the form of the most important relationships its qualities to
the most important compounds, created for heuristic purposes.” In the
social sciences a model is generally defined as a not very formalized dia-
gram describing or trying to explain a fragment of reality or analysed
processes. Importantly, because models are such simplified projections
of the phenomena analysed, they cannot be substitutes for examination
(Goban-Klas 1999, p. 52).
Theoretical models are characterized by a generally low predictive
value and a certain degree of simplification, because when constructing
them, elements which are irrelevant to the objectives pursued or unim-
portant at a given stage of research are omitted. Such models are used
to build theories, that is, more complex cognitive structures. Theoretical
models comprise certain variables (dependent and independent), and
the relationships between them (causal, cause-and-effect, functional,
and structural) (Wanat 2002, pp.  17–18). Depending on the classifi-
cation criteria, the following types of communication models can be
distinguished:

• in terms of utility—descriptive, operational (enabling measuring and

forecasting), and functional (describing relationships between compo-
nents and identifying interdependencies);
• in terms of structure—linear (showing the communication process as
a continuous line) and concentric (a dynamic approach).
16 Communication in Organizational Environments

A different typology was proposed by G. Fauconnier, who distinguished

four groups of models:

• structural, which show the elements of a process;

• dynamic, which illustrate the course of the communication process;
• functional, which look for relationships between the components of
the process;
• operational, which permit predicting the course of the communica-
tion process (Dobek-Ostrowska 2007, pp. 75–76).

According to E. Kulczycki, when analysing models of communication

it is important to refer to the definition of this concept (2012). Defining
communication as a process in which there is a transmission or transfer of
information, knowledge, ideas, feelings, or emotions led to the emergence
of transmission models. In turn, defining communication as a social prac-
tice, which enables the building of relationships and social bonds within
the framework of social interaction and involves social creation of mean-
ing, is associated with constitutive models (Kulczycki 2012, p.  27). A
slightly different view is expressed by S.P. Morreale, B.H. Spitzberg, and
J.K. Barge, according to whom the most common assumptions adopted
when creating models are the following (2007, p. 34):

• communication as a transfer of information from the sender to the

receiver;
• communication as agreeing on meaning between interlocutors;
• communication as persuasion intended to reinforce, change or modify
the attitudes, values, and actions of the participants;
• communication as creating a community.

Most models of communication are descriptive, either structural or

dynamic, which in a simplified way illustrate the components and the
process, treating it as a transfer of information, agreeing on meaning or
persuasion. The authors of this work, because of its subject matter, focus
only on selected models which can be useful in analysing communication
within an organization.
One of the oldest models used in the study of communication is a model
on the flow of information developed by K. Lewin (Fig. 1.1). According
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 17

Gatekeeper 1 Gatekeeper 2 Information Items

conversion
Information Items
Key item

Items

Fig. 1.1 K.  Lewin’s flow of information model (Source: adapted from
Sobkowiak (2005, p. 31))

to its basic premise, the transfer of messages in social situations is uneven

and incomplete. This happens because a message must overcome a num-
ber of obstacles on its way, which regulate and control it. Barriers to the
flow of information are gates, and the bodies or institutions that control
these gates and influence the content and form of messages are called
gatekeepers. They fulfil the controlling and filtering function, deciding
which information to let through and which to stop. Moreover, they col-
lect information and relay it to the recipients in a specific form, which
corresponds to a stimulatory function (Sobkowiak 2005, p. 31).
The most famous communication model in the social sciences is
H.D. Lasswell’s model of persuasive communication (Fig. 1.2). This is based
on Aristotle’s triad of communication, which includes the speaker (sender),
the content (message), and the listener (receiver). According to Lasswell,
when analysing the communication process it is necessary to answer five
basic questions, which are also the components of communication:

• Who?
• Says what?
• In which channel?
• To whom?
• With what effect?

SENDER MESSAGE CHANNEL RECEIVER EFFECT

In which With what
Who ? Says what ? To whom ?
channel ? effect ?

Fig. 1.2 H.  D. Lasswell’s model of persuasive communication (Source:

adapted from Dobek-Ostrowska (2007, p. 78))
18 Communication in Organizational Environments

The model describes the process of persuasive communication and

concerns instrumental forms of communicating. The sender here has a
specific purpose, which is to obtain a particular effect in the form of
creating a new attitude, or changing or strengthening an existing one
(Dobek-Ostrowska 2007, p. 77). Communication is seen in this case as a
one-way and linear process.
Another extremely popular and influential model, referred to as a model
of transmitting signals, was developed by C.  Shannon and W.  Weaver
and is a linear operational model (Fig. 1.3).
Originally, this model was intended to illustrate the transmission of
signals in technical systems, for example, in telephones, but researchers
quickly realized its versatility. The beginning of the process is an informa-
tion source that creates a message. The transmitter converts (encodes)
the message into signals, transmitted through a specific channel to the
receiver. The receiver then decodes the signal and relays the information
to the destination. The communication can be disrupted by various kinds
of noise, which hinder, and in extreme cases prevent, the transfer of the
message (Potocki et al. 2011, p. 44). The intention of C. Shannon and
W. Weaver was to create a general model of communication. It was to help
in formulating a theory of information exchange between humans and
machines, hence psychological, social, and semantic aspects were omitted
from the analysis. These deficiencies were addressed by other researchers,
who, depending on the represented scientific discipline, stressed other
factors affecting the communication process in their models.

INFORMATION TRANSMITTER RECEIVER DESTINATION

SOURCE

MESSAGE SIGNAL RECEIVED MESSAGE

SIGNAL

NOISE
SOURCE

Fig. 1.3 C.  Shannon and W.  Weaver’s model of communication (Source:
adapted from Fiske (1999, p. 22))
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 19

The mathematical approach to communication theory, one supporter

of which was C. Shannon, did not gain acceptance in circles connected
with the humanities; it was contested by, among others, anthropolo-
gists, psychologists, linguists, sociologists, and psychiatrists. A group of
researchers allied around G.  Bateson, which included R.  Birdwhistell,
E.T.  Hall, and P.  Watzlawick, called the Palo Alto Group, proposed a
departure from the linear model of communication in favour of a coax-
ial model which included feedback. According to the representatives of
this trend, communicating processes should be analysed by humanists,
not mathematicians and engineers. These scholars developed a theory of
communication based on the following assumptions (Dobek-Ostrowska
2007, p. 57):

• the essence of communication lies in the process of relationship and

interaction;
• every human behaviour has communicative value;
• the receiver plays a more important role in communication than the
sender;
• mental problems in an individual can disrupt the process of their com-
munication with the environment;
• the entire global interactive situation created by the many acts of com-
munication should be analysed rather than just a few isolated cases.

In the approach of the Palo Alto Group researchers, communication

is treated as a social and continuous process occurring at different levels,
which is integrated with a range of behaviours in the interpersonal space,
for example, words, gestures, movements, or looks. The research was
conducted within two orientations, anthropological and psychological,
the latter being particularly relevant to organizational communication.
P. Watzlawick, J. Beavin, and D. Jackson proposed a systemic and prag-
matic approach to communication between people (Fig. 1.4).
The researchers formulated five axioms of communication which
became the principal elements of their conception, and that are still
invoked by many scholars associated with communicology. These are
as follows (Littlejohn and Foss 2008, p.  197; Nęcki 2000, pp.  26–27;
Peverelli and Verdyun 2010, pp. 18–21):
20 Communication in Organizational Environments

Person A MESSAGE Person B

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fig. 1.4 P. Watzlawick, J. Beavin, and D. Jackson’s model of communication
(Source: Own compilation)

• each individual is part of the social system created by communication,

therefore one cannot not communicate;
• each act of communication has two aspects: a content aspect (the lit-
eral meaning of a message, i.e. the denotative level) and a relationship
aspect (the connotative or interpretive level; meta-communication);
• the communication process is a sequence of events separated from one
another and occurring in a certain order, but they should be consid-
ered as a whole and not as individual elements;
• each individual communicates in two ways: digital (the relationship
between the form and content of a message is arbitrary) and analogic
(the form and content of a message are linked and are mutually
dependent);
• the communication process is always either symmetric (equal power of
the participants) or complementary (unequal power of the
participants).

Although the concept of P. Watzlawick and his team was based on a

study on the effectiveness of consultation in family therapy, the research
achievements of its creators have also been successfully used in the analysis
of issues related to organizational communication.
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 21

Shared
Field of experience field of Field of experience

Sender Encode Signal Decode Receiver

experience

Fig. 1.5 W.  Schramm’s model of shared experience (Source: adapted from
Mrozowski (1991, p. 23))

The American scientist W. Schramm, referring to the ideas of C. Shannon

and W. Weaver, developed a model which strongly emphasized the roles of
the sender and the receiver in the communication process (Fig. 1.5). The
author introduced into the theory of communication the concept of the
so-called shared experience, including attitudes, beliefs, ideas, and views
with which the sender and the receiver equally identify (Wiktor 2001,
p. 24). Thus in this case communication involves both the mutual sharing
of experiences between people, as well as mutual participation in a certain
community. The essential elements in this process are the source, which
may be an individual or organization; the message, disseminated in vari-
ous forms; and the individual or mass recipient. According to the assump-
tions of this model, communication proceeds in three phases. First, the
source encodes a message so that it is understandable to the receiver. Then
the receiver identifies the code used by the sender in interpreting it. The
last stage involves the decoding, or reading, of the content contained in
the message. According to W. Schramm, the process of communication
can only be effective when the sender and the receiver use the same code
and symbols, and when they have a sufficiently large area of shared experi-
ence. This model rejects the linear nature of communication because each
participant is both the source and the recipient.
Observing the way in which a message travels from a medium to the
final recipient, P. Lazarsfeld and E. Katz developed the two-step flow of
communication model (Fig. 1.6). According to the researchers, the con-
tent distributed by the mass media does not always directly reach the final
destination. Between the recipient and the medium there are opinion
leaders, individuals who are more society and media savvy.
22 Communication in Organizational Environments

Mass
media

- opinion leader

- individuals with social contact with the opinion leader

Fig. 1.6 P. Lazarsfeld and E. Katz’s two-step flow of communication (Source:

adapted from: own compilation based on Zalewska-Turzyńska (2012, p. 79))

These leaders not only diffuse certain information, but they also influ-
ence the attitudes and consciousness of the recipients, thus shaping pub-
lic opinion (Zalewska-Turzyńska 2012, p. 78). In this model, the impact
of the leaders on the target recipients is strongly emphasized.
B.  Westley and M.  MacLean’s model of communication is usually
used, as intended by the authors, when considering mass communica-
tion. It turns out, however, that it can also be adapted for the analysis of
the communication process in any other context. The main components
of the model are a source of information in society (A), the recipient of
the message who is a member of society (B), and the so-called gatekeeper
or gatekeepers (C) (Fig. 1.7).
The gatekeepers are individuals who act as mass communicators and
who can interfere with the communication process and decide which
information is to be transmitted (so-called filtering). In addition, these
people have the possibility of modifying the content of the messages. The
individual perception of reality by the participants of communication,
as well as their experience, skills, and beliefs influence the shape of the
process. According to the authors of this model, the active participants in
the communication process are the sender and the gatekeeper, while the
recipient is dependent on them (Dobek-Ostrowska 2007, p. 86). In turn,
the feedback relationships between participants may vary in nature and
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 23

MESSAGE 1

A C B

MESSAGE 2

Fig. 1.7 B. Westley and M. MacLean’s model of mass communication (Source:

adapted from Dobek-Ostrowska (2007, p. 85))

appear between the sender and the receiver, the gatekeeper and the source
of information, as well as the final recipient and the gatekeeper.
Another model which emphasizes the role of the environment in
which communication takes place is the sociological model developed by
M. and J. Riley (Fig.  1.8). Communication is treated here as one of the
social systems functioning in society (Zalewska-Turzyńska 2012, p. 77).
This model in a comprehensive way depicts the relationships between
communication viewed as a social process and society as a whole.
Although it is based on the traditional sender-message-receiver formula,
communication is perceived in a slightly different way than in the case
of other models. It is assumed that the communicator and the receiver
are members of a primary group and a reference group, which influence
the formulation, selection, and perception of messages. These groups, in
turn, are influenced by the society in which they function.

PRIMARY MESSAGES PRIMARY

GROUP GROUP

PRIMARY
c MESSAGES R PRIMARY
GROUP GROUP

LARGER SOCIAL MESSAGES LARGER SOCIAL

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE

OVER-ALL
SOCIAL SYSTEM

Fig. 1.8 Riley and Riley’s sociological model (Source: adapted from Zalewska-
Turzyńska (2012, p. 77))
24 Communication in Organizational Environments

The authors of this model argue that the system of communication

cannot be separated from the system of social relationships.
A model of communication developed in 1960 by D.K.  Berlo is
referred to in the literature as the SMCR model (Fig. 1.9).
The name of the model is an acronym of its four components: Source,
Message, Channel, and Receiver. However, to each of the elements the
author adds a number of factors which affect the components of commu-
nication. The sender and the receiver are influenced by their communica-
tion skills, attitudes, and knowledge, as well as by the social system and
culture. Messages, in turn, are determined by their elements, structure,
content, treatment (how the message is handled), as well as the code
applied. The communication channels are the human senses: hearing,
sight, touch, smell, and taste (Sobkowiak 2005, p. 39). These factors can
facilitate communication between the participants of the process or they
can disrupt it. The graphical representation of the model does not include
noise or feedback. An in-depth analysis of the components makes it pos-
sible to determine the impact of the individual elements on the effective-
ness of the entire communication process.
A dynamic approach to the communication process is presented
by the concentric HUB model, developed by the American scientists
R. Hiebert, D. Unguraita, and T. Bohn. Like the selection model created
by B. Westley and M. MacLean, it is typically used for mapping mass com-
munication, but can also be used for analysing internal communication
through the use of social media. According to the authors of this model,
the communication process resembles the process of sound wave propa-
gation (Fig. 1.10).

S M C R

SOURCE MESSAGE CHANNEL RECEIVER

1. Communication skills 1. Elements 1. Hearing 1. Communication skills

2. Attitudes 2. Structure 2. Seeing 2. Attitudes

3. Knowledge 3. Content 3. Touching 3. Knowledge

4. Social system 4. Treatment 4. Smelling 4. Social system

5. Code 5. Tasting

Fig. 1.9 D.  K. Berlo’s SMCR communication model (Source: adapted from
Sobkowiak (2005, p. 39))
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 25

Feedback Content Content Amplification

Noise and
distortions
of the
content

Fig. 1.10 The concentric HUB model (Source: adapted from Dobek-
Ostrowska (2007, p. 107))

The components of the model comprise the sender (organization),

codes, gatekeepers (controllers, stimulators, and reviewers of a message),
transmitters (technical means of disseminating information), regulators
(social control of the media), filters (psychological and physical recep-
tors), and audiences (social groups receiving information) (Potocki et al.
2011, pp.  48–49). The message travels slowly from the sender to the
audience located in the outer circle, overcoming various obstacles or bar-
riers. Then, it returns to the source in the form of feedback.
The models of communication described above do not exhaust all
the issues related to mapping the communication processes. The rich
research outcome of different scientific disciplines on the one hand attests
to the importance of this issue, and on the other hand shows the exis-
tence of often very different approaches to the analysis of this phenom-
enon. According to E.  Kulczycki, although models of communication
have a heuristic value, the real subjects of consideration are the indi-
vidual components rather than the communication itself (2012, p. 25).
Furthermore, most of the models can be classified as modified versions of
the transmission and constitutive models.
Because communication in this book is considered in an intra-
organizational context, the authors focus only on selected models. A
critical analysis of the assumptions of these models, based on the results
of empirical research, will be used to construct a modified and updated
model of organizational communication. The next chapter will present
the characteristics of communication within an enterprise.
26 Communication in Organizational Environments

References
Adams, K., & Galanes, G.  J. (2008). Komunikacja w grupach. Warsaw:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Antoszewski, A., & Herbut, R. (red.). (1995). Leksykon Politologii.
Wrocław: Atla 2.
Bartoli, A. (1994). Communication et organisation. Pour une politique générale
cohérente. Paris: Les Éditions d’Organisation.
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory,
9, 119–161.
Deetz, S. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building
responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill: Hampton.
Dictionary of the Polish language, Online version, http://sjp.pwn.pl/szukaj/
model. Accessed March 2015.
Dobek-Ostrowska, B. (2007). Podstawy komunikowania społecznego. Wrocław:
Wydawnictwo Astrum.
Donjean, C. (2006). La communication interne. Liège: Edi.pro.
Eicher, J. (1995). Sztuka komunikowania się. Łódź: Ravi.
Encyklopedia PWN, Online version. http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl. Accessed
March 2015.
Fiske, J. (1999). Wprowadzenie do badań nad komunikowaniem. Wrocław:
Astrum.
Frydrychowicz, S. (2009). Komunikacja interpersonalna w zarządzaniu. Poznań:
Wydawnictwo Forum Naukowe.
Galambaud, B. (1988). Information: outil de management?, Revue Personnel, nr
292, Paris.
Goban-Klas, T. (1999). Media i komunikowanie masowe. Teorie i analizy prasy,
radia, telewizji i Internetu. Warszawa-Krakow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN.
Griffin, E. (2003). Podstawy komunikacji społecznej. Gdańsk: Gdańskie
Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Joffre, P., & Koenig, G. (1985). Stratégie d’entreprise L’antimanuel. Paris: Editions
Economica.
Kulczycki, E. (2012). Teoretyzowanie komunikacji. Poznań: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe Instytutu Filozofii UAM.
Lesca, E., & Lesca, H. (1995). Gestion de l’information. Qualité de l’information
et performances de l’entreprise. Paris: Editions Litec.
Littlejohn S. W., & Foss K.A. (2008). Theories of Human Communication. 9th
edition. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
 1 Theory of Communication: Evolution, Approaches, Models 27

Martyniak, Z. (1997). Elementy zarządzania informacją i komunikacją w

przedsiębiorstwie, Cracow: Wyd. Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie.
Mikułowski-Pomorski, J. (1988). Informacja i komunikacja. Pojęcia, wzajemne
relacje, im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław.
Morreale, S. P., Spitzberg, B. H., & Barge, J. K. (2007). Komunikacja między
ludźmi. Motywacja, wiedza i umiejętności. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN SA.
Mrozowski, M. (1991). Między manipulacją a poznaniem. Człowiek w świecie
mediów. Warsaw: Centralny Ośrodek Metodyki Upowszechniania Kultury.
Nęcki, Z. (2000). Komunikacja międzyludzka. Kraków: Antykwa.
Ollivier, B. (2010). Nauki o komunikacji. Warsaw: Oficyna Naukowa.
Peverelli, P., & Verdyun, K. (2010). Understanding the basic dynamics of organiz-
ing. Delft: Eburon.
Potocki, A., Winkler, R., & Żbikowska, A. (2011). Komunikowanie w organizac-
jach gospodarczych. Warsaw: Difin.
Rosengren, K. E. (2006). Communication: An introduction. London/Thousand
Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.
Sikorski, C. (2001). Zachowania ludzi w organizacji. Warsaw: PWN.
Sobkowiak, B. (2005). Interpersonalne i grupowe komunikowanie się w orga-
nizacji. Poznań/Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Forum Naukowe.
Stankiewicz, J. (2006). Komunikowanie się w organizacji. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo
Astrum.
Wanat, T. (2002). Modele komunikowania się, w: Komunikowanie się w biznesie,
H. Mruk (red.), Poznań: Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
Weinstein, K. (1994). Komunikowanie się, w: Praktyka kierowania, D.  M.
Steward (Ed.). Warsaw: PWE.
Wiktor, J. W. (2001). Promocja. System komunikacji przedsiębiorstwa z rynkiem.
Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Zalewska-Turzyńska, M. (2012). Komunikowanie się w organizacji—studium
prakseologiczne. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

Notes
1. Communicology—a field of academic studies classified under the humanities
or social sciences which studies, describes, or explains communication pro-
cesses using an interdisciplinary research approach and is considered an inde-
pendent discipline.
 2
Internal Communication
in an Organization

This chapter discusses the organization as a communication

environment, types of communication needs, as well as the essence of
communication within an organization. On these grounds, the terms
“internal communication” and “communication in an organization”
will be analysed. Moreover, the authors’ deliberations will cover types of
information, levels of communication, directions of communication,
forms of communication, and instruments of communication.

2.1 Organizational Environment

Organizations play an increasingly important role in people’s lives; they
are an integral part of society and fulfil the demand for various prod-
ucts and services. Each person is a part of certain organizations and is
subject to their influence, while simultaneously influencing the way in
which those organizations operate. In the literature relating to manage-
ment, the concept of an “organization” is defined with regard to three
aspects: material, functional, and attributive. In the functional approach,
an organization is the process of creating complex things, whereas in the

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 29

A. Rogala, S. Bialowas, Communication in Organizational
Environments, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54703-3_2
30 Communication in Organizational Environments

attributive approach it is defined as a set of features that are characteristic

for organized things (Marek and Białasiewicz 2008, p. 15). Particularly
important, however, is the material aspect, which is variously defined by
researchers. In the most general terms, an organization can be defined as
a whole consisting of interrelated parts. According to S.P. Robbins and
D.A. DeCenzo (2002, p. 29), it constitutes a “systematic arrangement of
people brought together to accomplish some specific purpose.” According
to T. Kotarbiński (2000, p. 49), an organization is a whole (…), the com-
ponents of which co-contribute to the success of the whole.” In turn,
P.F. Kast and J. Rosenzweig (as cited in: Koźminski and Piotrowski 2006,
p.  30), referring to H.J.  Leavitt’s model of organization, define it as a
structured socio-technical system. People with their skills, attitudes, and
behaviour, together with the goals and tasks performed by an organi-
zation, are the social elements; whereas the technical elements include
technology and structure.
All parts of an organization are linked and they interact with each
other. Among the linkages which determine the form of organizational
behaviour, P. Tyrała distinguishes the following (2004, pp. 25–26):

• the relationship between people (a stochastic factor) and technology:

more efficient and complex technologies require higher qualifications;
people with higher qualifications behave in a calm and balanced way,
they are confident about their actions, as opposed to those with low
skills;
• the impact of an organization’s structure on its members: employees
create structures, occupy specific places in those structures and behave
in accordance with the functions which they perform and the posi-
tions which they have in the structure;
• the relationship between people and goals: the behaviour and attitudes
of employees are determined by the goals formulated by them within
the organization;
• the relationship between goals and technologies: to perform a task,
specific methods are required, which can be more or less technologi-
cally advanced;
• the impact of an organization’s goal on its structure.
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 31

Attitudes, qualifications,
Mission, a bundle of goals, a motivation, skills, predispositions,
tree of goals, tasks interpersonal relations
Environement

Social Goals and tasks People

elements

Technical
elements Formal structure Equipment and technology

Environment

Hierarchy, organisational pattern, Know-how, producing and

scopes of activities, instructions processing data

Fig. 2.1 An organization as a socio-technical system: H.  Leavitt’s model

(Source: adapted from Koźmiński and Piotrowski (1996, p. 46))

The linkages between the individual elements of an organizational sys-

tem as well as the directions of their mutual influences are shown in
Fig. 2.1.
Neither the social system nor the technical system can function auton-
omously, and thus they cannot independently pursue the objectives of
the organization (Moczydłowska 2006, p.  17). Social systems control
technical systems, thus allowing the achievement of the intended results.
Based on the assumptions of the systemic approach, T.J.  Peters and
R.H.  Waterman developed a model of organization alternative to the
model of H.J. Leavitt, which is referred to in the literature as the 7S or
the McKinsey 7S model (Fig. 2.2).
In this model an organization is described in terms of non-material
characteristics, which include the following (see: Bhattacharyya 2011,
pp. 333–334; Karlöf 1993, pp. 163–165; Wickham 2000, p. 380):

• shared values—the rules of conduct, identified with organizational

culture, which are particularly important for the survival and success
of an organization, as well as a philosophy which is known to and
accepted by the employees;
• strategy adopted by an organization, which is a set of actions intended
to achieve specific goals;
32 Communication in Organizational Environments

Structure

Strategy Systems

Shared
values

Skills Style

Staff

Fig. 2.2 McKinsey 7S model

(Source: adapted from Peters and Waterman (2011, p. 48))

• structure, defining the formal relationships between the components

of an organization and distributing actions within the organizational
hierarchy;
• systems, defined as the procedures and processes in an organization
used for controlling and making use of resources, which determine
how specific activities and tasks are implemented;
• staff needed in a company, meaning the entire knowledge and know-
how held by the people in an organization, including recruitment
methods, personnel requirements, and the specialties and professions
of employees;
• skills—meaning the capabilities of the organization and its members
which permit the achievement of objectives;
• style, which refers to the behaviour of the members of an organization
in their interactions, with particular emphasis on the style of
leadership.

At the centre of the McKinsey 7S model there are shared values,

which, if accepted by the employees, help achieve business excellence.
All the components of the model are interrelated, so a change in one of
them may entail changes in the organization as a whole. In the light of
research conducted by Peters and Waterman, the success of an organiza-
tion depends to a lesser extent on the “hard” elements of management,
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 33

that is, the structure, strategy, and systems; and to a greater extent on the
“soft” ones, that is, the style of management, employees, competencies,
and organizational culture (as cited in: Cyfert and Krzakiewicz 2006,
p. 10). An effective use of the soft elements, together with a company’s
constant drive for perfection, can compensate for structural deficiencies
and procedural irregularities.
For the purposes of this book an organization is defined as a socio-
technical system, where people are brought together to achieve a common
goal (or set of goals) and whose behaviour is determined and circum-
scribed by the organizational structure adopted. At the same time the
authors accept the view expressed by Peters and Waterman of the greater
importance of the soft elements, those relating to the human element, for
the success of an organization, and which concern the significant impact
of leadership styles and organizational culture on employee behaviour.
A relationship is formed between the employees and the company in
which they are employed, which is determined by the behaviour of indi-
viduals towards the company and the behaviour of the company as a
whole towards individuals. The nature of the relationship between the
people and the organization, and the differences between individuals, are
analysed in the context of the interdependence between the technical
needs of an organization and the needs of the people. An organization is a
complex social system and must be examined as a whole in order to prop-
erly understand the behaviour of the individuals within it. Similarly, the
determinants of employee behaviour, including communicative behav-
iour, cannot be considered without referring to the entire organizational
system.
Employees enter into a contract with an organization involving their
mutual requirements in terms of the relationships between the two
sides, changes in these requirements over time, and their impact on the
behaviour of the parties to the contract. This contract contains a set
of expectations which individuals have regarding their contribution to
the operation of the company, and what they get from the company in
return (Armstrong 2011, p. 253). An individual contributes their effort,
competence, abilities, time, or loyalty to the organization in order to
meet its needs and requirements. The company responds to employees’
expectations by offering various incentives, for example, remuneration,
34 Communication in Organizational Environments

career opportunities, status, and job security. The organization expects

the employees to be productive, loyal, dedicated, as well as upholding a
good corporate image. In turn, employees want to be treated like human
beings, have the opportunity to learn and develop, and receive feedback
on the progress of their work (Kożusznik 2007, pp. 40–41). According
to S.L. Robinson and D.M. Rousseau (as cited in: Makin et al. 2000,
p. 11) this psychological contract, apart from expectations, also includes
the promise of mutual obligations understood as a higher, stronger form
of expectations. Thus, violating these obligations by either of the parties
leads to more intense reactions and behaviour, such as anger or frustra-
tion, and the unfulfilled expectations become a source of disappointment.
Psychological contracts are usually not formulated or conveyed directly,
but through the use of hints, suggestions, and comments made by the
employer about specific events occurring within the organization. Based
on their observation and analysis of these actions, employees realize what
the requirements of the company towards them are, and what they can
expect from the company (Wellin 2010, p. 39). The psychological agree-
ment is therefore an effective instrument for influencing the behaviour
and attitudes of the members of an organization, and consequently also
the functioning and performance of the organization as a whole. Skilfully
formulated, it helps develop employee behaviour which is desirable from
the point of view of the company, thus contributing to the achievement
of the company’s goals. A violation of the psychological contract has sig-
nificant negative consequences, such as lowering the level of trust and
job satisfaction, or even leaving the organization (Makin et  al. 2000,
pp. 12–13). However, if the contract is assessed by both parties as fair and
honest, and both the company and the employee meet their reciprocal
expectations, the result will be mutual satisfaction with the relationship,
and hence the smooth functioning of the company. Relations between
the individual and the organization are formed through an interaction of
mutual influences and interests within the agreed psychological contract,
and for the execution of which it is essential for people management to
be based on trust, authority, and good communication.
Every employee has a specific set of needs they want to satisfy (includ-
ing those relating to communication in the workplace) and work-related
behaviours (including communication behaviour). In addition, they
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 35

have certain abilities which they can contribute to the operations of the
organization. A perfect match between an individual and their job hap-
pens when an employee’s needs are meticulously satisfied by the com-
pany and when the company makes excellent use of their behaviour and
capabilities. In practice, such a situation is rarely achieved, partly because
of imperfections in recruitment procedures and partly due to changes
affecting both organizations and employees. Moreover, people differ in
terms of physical, psychological, and emotional traits, meaning that each
individual is unique, so the assessment of their needs and abilities is an
extremely difficult task. As a result, every organization faces the challenge
of properly managing contracts specifying mutual behaviour: in order to,
on the one hand, assure an appropriate contribution from their employ-
ees; and on the other to provide them with the right incentives.
The social system of an organization, which consists of people, goals,
and tasks, is based on the interactions between individual members and
on the relationships that develop between them. Interpersonal relation-
ships in an enterprise can be positive or negative in nature. In the former
case, the employees have great respect and affinity for one another, and
keeping in touch is pleasant for them. If the interacting participants do
not like or respect one another and mutual contacts are an onerous neces-
sity, the interpersonal dynamic is negative (ibid., pp. 590–591). Positive
relationships in the workplace are extremely important, if only in the
context of meeting the social needs of the employees and their influence
on the behaviour of the people in organizations.

2.2 Types of Communication Needs

in an Enterprise
Enterprises are complex systems. Individual sub-systems must work together
to achieve the objectives of the organization. The processes of communica-
tion, which determine their correct cooperation, occur both inside and out-
side the company. The communication needs of businesses are not limited
to contacts with employees or customers, but apply to a much larger group
of recipients. For this reason, they must be analysed in a broader context.
36 Communication in Organizational Environments

Any issues relating to the types of communication needs in organizations

ought to be considered taking into account three categories of facts
(Potocki et al. 2011, pp. 22–23). Firstly, organizations are, as mentioned
earlier, systems in which communicative interactions should help achieve
better cooperation between individuals, in line with the interests of the
company. The organizational structure determines the character and the
course of interpersonal exchange as well as the channels and tools used
for this purpose. Therefore, the communication needs of the organiza-
tion’s members are principally determined by the tasks assigned to them.
In view of the fact that organizations are made up of people, they also
represent a social structure in which roles are defined and a hierarchy is
established. This structure is characterized by a specific culture which
affects the communication processes taking place in the enterprise. Every
company develops some language procedures, determined by the culture,
as well as a distinctive organizational lexicon. In addition, communica-
tion acts are influenced by the network of relationships between the indi-
vidual members of the organization. The final aspect which should be
considered, according to these authors, refers to contemporary economic
conditions. Changes in the functioning of enterprises, which result,
among other things, from advancing globalization, produce particular
consequences for communication processes. The increasing diversity of
human resources in terms of character and stability of involvement in
the organization, together with cultural differences between individuals,
mean that communication is likely to encounter serious problems. As a
result of the growing trend for temporary employment, employee loyalty
to the company and the need for integration tend to decline, which in
turn means that individuals are less willing to engage in organizational
communication, and when they do communicate, they tend to be less
open. Also, any existing cultural differences between the members of the
organization are significant because they have different personal values
and adhere to different social norms. Consequently, the company may
experience manifestations of mutual dislike or even hostility between
employees, as well as an increased likelihood of conflicts.
Considering the communication needs of organizations, one must
take into account the need for communication between individuals
within a company, as well as the necessary flow of information between
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 37

the organization and its environment. In external communication, the

following levels of relationships can be distinguished (ibid., p. 24):

• organization with another entity, for example, a financial institution or

a sub-contractor;
• organization with a specific segment of the environment, for example,
a student association;
• organization with a customer.

Effective communication of a company with the external environment

provides information which is necessary for its functioning and which
helps it to quickly adapt to market changes. Organizations pay particular
attention to communicating with customers, which is not limited only
to advertising messages. Due to the increasing consumer awareness with
regard to ecology, ethics, and social responsibility, companies are obliged
to undertake activities which build their corporate image. It should
also be stressed that in the modern world, organizations must take into
account the need for a two-way flow of information in their communica-
tion strategies.
As in the case of communication with the external environment, com-
munication within an enterprise also comprises several areas of need.
Thus, the following needs for interaction can be distinguished:

• between individuals,
• between an individual and a social sub-system,
• within a given sub-system,
• between social sub-systems.

A detailed analysis of these needs, which are equated with intra-

organizational communication levels, will be presented later in this chapter.
Organizational communication, both internal and external, is a com-
plex and multidimensional process. The need to consider the interests of
a wide range of recipients as well as adapting the message to the speci-
ficity of particular interest groups makes creating and implementing a
coherent organizational communication strategy an extremely difficult
task. It must be remembered, however, that without an effective flow of
38 Communication in Organizational Environments

information and effective communication, organizations would not be

able to function on the market at all.

2.3 The Essence of Communication within

an Organization
All activities undertaken by employees within their official duties require
a flow of information and communication with other members of the
organization. The communication processes occurring in an enterprise
make it possible for the company to function efficiently. From the per-
spective of company management it is therefore important to understand
the essence of the communication processes in an enterprise, their com-
ponents, as well as their tasks and objectives.
On the basis of the theories of organization available in the literature,
E. Griffin (2003, pp. 263–264) discusses the role of communication in an
enterprise within five approaches: mechanistic, interpersonal relationship
oriented, systemic, cultural, and political. In each of these approaches the
communication process is viewed slightly differently.
In the mechanistic approach, an organization is a machine, and the
employees are its components; which by definition are submissive and
behave in a predictable manner. The operation of this machine is designed
to achieve specific objectives. Importantly, the objectives can be attained
only if the personnel work smoothly, which is based on clearly defined
tasks and powers. The role of internal communication is thus reduced to
providing the information which is necessary for the proper performance
of their duties, formulated in a clear and precise way. Communication
is standardized both in terms of procedures and channels. However, in
the event of changes to the conditions in which an organization operates,
these are not sufficiently flexible or fast, which leads to problems with their
proper functioning and effectiveness (Morgan 1998, p.  32). Moreover,
difficulties in communicating and mutual understanding are also caused
by the high degree of specialization of individual organizational units.
In the interpersonal relationship-oriented approach, on the other
hand, the focus is on the individual; considered the most important part
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 39

of an organization. The followers of this approach base their assertions

on phenomenology, particularly on the assumptions relating to human
nature formulated by Carl Rogers. According to researchers, people are
brought closer together when (Griffin 2003, pp. 151–152)

• their external behaviour is consistent with their inner feelings,

• they unconditionally accept others for what they are and not for what
they do,
• they listen to others while trying to understand their experience.

Therefore, the communication process should be based on a two-way

flow of information. Communication takes the form of a partnership
dialogue between the subordinate and the superior, thus making it pos-
sible to increase the involvement of the individual in implementing the
objectives of the organization. Creating staff development opportunities
and engaging the workers in challenging tasks increases their enthusiasm
and creativity. Non-authoritarian relationships between the members of
an organization help them to realize their full potential.
The systemic approach assumes that an organization is a whole made
up by interconnected elements. K.  Weick, one of the representatives
of this view, created a model of an organization as an information sys-
tem; that is, a system of coordinated actions requiring constant correc-
tion in order to survive in a turbulent environment. According to the
assumptions of this model, an organization strives to convert unclear
information into messages characterized by a level of univocality that
will enable its smooth functioning (Weick 1979). At the same time,
the author stresses the significant role of direct contact in this regard.
Communication processes occurring within a company, therefore, are
supposed to eliminate ambiguity and lead to obtaining the information
necessary for effective action.
The cultural approach, represented by M. Pacanowsky, assumes that
culture is a community of meaning, understanding, and making sense.
Through communicating, people create a net of meanings, which then
determines the subsequent stages of its weaving. It is important to realize
that to understand the meanings it is necessary to pay special attention to
the following (Griffin 2003, p. 279):
40 Communication in Organizational Environments

• the creative language used by the organization’s members,

• the stories told by the employees,
• the non-verbal rituals practised.

Communication is therefore an element of reality taken for granted by

the participants of this process, who at the same time co-create it.
Representatives of the political approach, in turn, argue that in organi-
zations there is a constant struggle for power and influence between vari-
ous interest groups. Proper management of the communication processes
in an enterprise helps both to increase business productivity and to cre-
ate a democratic working environment, thus its role goes far beyond the
information-providing aspect. It should be noted, however, that informa-
tion can be a source of power. Consequently, by having control of infor-
mation one can influence how organizational situations are defined and
how dependence patterns are formed (Morgan 1998, p. 194).
The terms “internal communication” or “communication in an orga-
nization” are defined in more or less detail, depending on the adopted
scientific perspective and approach to internal communication, treated
either as an instrument or an independent process in an enterprise. To
illustrate the different views on the essence of communication in an
organization and the different perceptions of its roles, Table 2.1 presents
selected definitions of these concepts. This list obviously does not contain
all the available definitions of the term “internal communication,” but
only those which in the authors’ opinion will provide the best starting
point for further discussion.
General definitions of internal communication describe it as a flow of
knowledge and ideas between people within an organization (see: Bovée
and Thill 2000, p.  7; Mazzei 2010, p.  221). It can, however, also be
regarded in an instrumental way, identifying it with all the instruments
used by a company to communicate with its employees (Cornelissen
2004, p.  189). In another proposed approach, communication is the
main organizational process in which information is exchanged among
various participants, and this process binds together the organizational
units of the company as well as connecting the company with the envi-
ronment (Gros 1994, p.  69). The authors of the cited definitions per-
ceive internal communication only from the angle of an information and
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 41

Table 2.1 Definitions of the term “internal communication”

Author(s) Definition
C. L. Bovée The exchange of information and ideas within an organization
J. V. Thiel
G. Cheney Employee relations, statements of mission, and organizational
L. Christensen development
J. Cornelissen All methods used by a firm to communicate with its employees
M. Dunmore A process which supports implementing the strategy, spreading
the values, and creating the personality of a company, which
plays a significant role in creating competitive advantage
U. Gros The main organizational process involving an exchange of
information between the various participants, binding
together the organizational units of the company and the
company with the environment
H. A. Kalla All formal and informal communication taking place internally
at all levels of an organization
A. Mazzei The flow of information between people in an organization
A. Olsztyńska The process of information transfer whose main objectives are
to stimulate understanding among employees for actions
taken in the area of organization and management, as well as
building loyalty and identification with the company
B. Quirkie A fundamental process that allows enterprises to create value
for the customer
E. Scholes The professional management of interactions between all those
with an interest or ‘a stake’ in a particular organization
Source: Own compilation (Based on Bovée and Thiel (2000, p. 7), Cheney and
Christensen (2001, p. 233), Cornelissen (2004, p. 189), Dunmore (2002, pp. 133–
134), Gros (1994, p. 69), Kalla (2005, p. 304), Mazzei (2010, p. 221), Olsztyńska
(2002, p. 167), Quirke (2008, p. 21), Scholes (1997, p. xviii))

knowledge transfer within an organization, and thus reduce it to the flow

of information across an enterprise. Other researchers, however, consider
its role in a broader context.
According to E.  Scholes (1997, p. xviii) internal communication
should be understood as the professional management of interactions
between all the people who have an interest or a stake in an organization.
The author stresses, therefore, the managerial and relational function of
communication. In another definition, internal communication is the
process of supporting the implementation of a strategy, spreading values,
and creating the company’s personality, which at the same time plays
a significant role in creating competitive advantage (Dunmore 2002,
42 Communication in Organizational Environments

pp. 133–134). However, according to A. Olsztyńska (2002, p. 167), it

should be equated with a communicative process whose main objective
is to stimulate understanding among employees for actions taken in the
area of organization and management, as well as to build loyalty and
identification with the company. An interesting definition has been pro-
posed by B. Quirkie (2008, p. 21), who identifies internal communica-
tion as a fundamental process that allows enterprises to create value for
the customer. The author remarks that in times of information domi-
nance the principal resources of a company are knowledge and the rela-
tionships between employees. Thus, conducting a business consists of
collecting relevant information and processing it using the creativity and
intellect of the personnel in such a way as to create value for the recipient
of a product or service. On the other hand, for such actions to be pos-
sible, it is essential to have an appropriate working atmosphere as well
as an efficient, commonly accepted, and utilized system for the flow of
information.
In the literature one can also find examples of an integrated approach
to communication in enterprises. According to the assumptions of one
such approach, internal communication should be perceived in the fol-
lowing contexts (Kalla 2005, p. 304):

• business communication,
• management communication,
• corporate communication,
• organizational communication.

These areas impact all aspects of the organizational life (Miller 1996),
overlapping and mutually complementing each other. It should be
emphasized that it is difficult to demarcate them both from the scientific
and practical point of view. Thus, business communication is defined as
“the scholarly study of the use, adaptation, and creation of languages,
symbols, and signs to conduct activities that satisfy human needs and
wants by providing goods and services for private profit” (Reinsch 1996,
p. 28). The goal of management communication is to develop and dis-
seminate knowledge, which is to contribute to increasing the effective-
ness and efficiency of modern managers (Smeltzer 1996, pp.  22–23).
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 43

Importantly, this approach highlights the role of management in the orga-

nizational communication process, the obligations connected with it, as
well as the importance of communicative competence as such. Next, cor-
porate communication is defined as “a corporation’s voice and the images
it projects of itself on a world stage populated by its various audiences, or
what we refer to as constituencies” (Argenti and Forman 2002, p. 4). This
concept is thus wider than the previous two as it includes both internal
and external communication. Defining organizational communication,
D. Tourish and O. Hargie note that it consists of how the members of
an organization attribute meanings to messages within verbal and non-
verbal communication, communication skills, and communicative effec-
tiveness, and how they distort these meanings when communicating with
one another through both formal and informal channels (2004, p. 10). In
an attempt to conduct a comprehensive analysis of organizational com-
munication, H. Kalla proposes adopting a holistic approach. Its principal
construct is integrated internal communication, which should be under-
stood as all formal and informal communication taking place internally
at all levels in an organization (2005, p. 304). Naturally, the proponents
of this concept also recognize the relationships and dependencies between
external and internal communication (Cheney and Christensen 2001;
Kalla 2005), but they devote more attention to the latter. The integrated
approach is based on the assumption that employees play a key role in the
functioning and market success of an organization.
As the explanations given above clearly show, communication in an
enterprise is more than merely a transfer of messages from the sender to
the receiver. The authors of this publication believe that internal com-
munication should be understood as a two-sided process that occurs at
all levels of an organization and which serves to achieve the fundamental
objectives of a company. It involves generating, transforming, and trans-
mitting information between individuals, groups, and the organization;
and its primary objective is to achieve better cooperation between its
members. It must be noted that this process can take place through both
formal and informal channels, and that an act of communication can have
a verbal, non-verbal, or written form. In addition, communication in an
enterprise should develop or modify attitudes and behaviours according
to the interests of the parties involved. A detailed discussion regarding
44 Communication in Organizational Environments

the aspects of internal communication mentioned in the definition will

be presented in subsequent sections of the book.

2.4 Types of Information in an Organization

When analysing organizational information and communication one
should refer to the types of information occurring within organizations.
The concept of information is difficult to define in an unambiguous man-
ner because of its primary character. For the purposes of analysing the
communication process, it should be understood as content, expressed
with the use of linguistic and/or non-linguistic signs, which is meaning-
ful to someone (Gros 2003, p.  150). For an organization to function
efficiently, it is essential that all the messages transmitted within it meet
certain standards. First and foremost, information must be up to date, so
it must be delivered in the shortest time possible. It should also be credi-
ble and brief. Other significant features for conveyed information include
accuracy, that is, the degree of precision necessary to make the right deci-
sion, and completeness, understood as a comprehensive presentation of
the facts. The completeness of information is related to the concept of
the so-called information gap in the communication system, which is the
difference between the message content that the recipient would like to
receive and that which they actually get. An information gap can appear
for a variety of reasons, including psychological, matter/energy, external,
and organizational. In the first case, the source of the gap lies in the per-
sonality traits of the sender and the receiver, and may result, for instance,
from differences in individual perception. A discrepancy between the
information received and expected can also be related to physical barriers,
that is, the technical means that are used by the participants in the pro-
cess. The most common disruptive factors include noise, speaking too
quietly, or inadequate lighting. External factors relate to the influence
of the immediate and more distant environment on the place in which
the communication process takes place. Information gaps can also result
from the adopted division of labour within an organization, the methods
of coordinating activities and tasks, or the degree to which the behaviour
of employees is formalized (Potocki 2001, pp. 17–19).
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 45

The communication process within an organization can include

different types of information. In 1992, H. Lesca divided all the infor-
mation circulating in a company into two types (as cited in: Pateyron
1994, p. 34):

• the information of operation,

• the information of cooperation.

All formalized and quantified information of a technical or economic

nature which is necessary for ensuring the normal functioning of an orga-
nization is regarded as information of operation. On the other hand,
information of cooperation helps influence the behaviour of employ-
ees, build relationships between them, and ensure their harmonious
coexistence. Such information is typically verbal and informal. In their
subsequent work, E.  Lesca and H.  Lesca (1995, p.  14) divided all the
information circulating in an organization into three types:

• the functioning information,

• the information of influence,
• the information of anticipation.

In order to be efficient, the daily operations of a company require the

flow of so-called mechanical information relating to routinely performed
tasks. This type of information is referred to as functioning information,
and includes orders, balance sheets, and inventory cards. Due to their sig-
nificance and indispensability for organizations, functioning information
is highly formalized. On the other hand, the information of influence
includes all communications that aim to influence people’s behaviour in
such a way as to make them oriented towards cooperation as much as
possible. Such information includes all manifestations of internal com-
munication, for example, corporate publications, internal broadcasting
systems, and staff meetings. Information of influence can be either for-
mal or informal. The final type of information concerns issues which,
in the future, could affect the functioning of the company. This type of
information can relate to, for example, a change in the preferences of
buyers, the emergence of a new competitor, or customers’ complaints
46 Communication in Organizational Environments

about the service the company provides, so it originates outside the

organization. Despite its external nature, this information circulates in
the enterprise in the form of rumours or newspaper articles.
A different division of information in the organization was proposed
by U. Gros. Considering the way information is used, the author distin-
guished the following types (Gros 2003, p. 150):

• active information,
• passive information,
• neutral information.

Active information is information which causes its recipient to take a

specific action, delay the implementation of a task, or accept the current
task. Passive information complements the recipient’s knowledge, but it
is used only when an appropriate situation arises. It is therefore a type
of information that can be useful in the future. Neutral information, in
contrast, does not arouse the interest of the recipient at all. Given the fact
that passive and neutral information does not cause any reaction in the
person to whom they are addressed, it is considered that these two types
have no current informational value. Due to the fact that this informa-
tion is unstructured, unprocessed, and unrelated to the objectives and
tasks of the recipient, it is sometimes referred to as elementary informa-
tion or data. It should be noted, however, that sometimes information
which the sender intends to be active is not necessarily perceived as such
by the recipient; therefore, the aim of the communication process may
not be achieved.
The multitude and diversity of information circulating in the organi-
zational system means that a proper management of the communication
process is crucial for the proper functioning of an organization. The above
discussion shows that regardless of which definitions are considered cor-
rect, in each enterprise both communication and exchange of information
take place. It should be noted, however, that when analysing organizational
communication, the most comprehensive approach to this issue ought to
be adopted. Accordingly, the authors assume that internal communication
includes both exchange of information and communication. Moreover, they
agree with the view that communication is a means of providing information
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 47

or, in other words, that information is the object of communication. In sum-

mary, the present authors are of the opinion that communication is a superior
concept in relation to information.

2.5 Organizing Communication in an Enterprise

2.5.1 The Levels, Directions, and Forms
of Communication in Organizations

Communication in the workplace is a complex process which takes place

not only on several levels, but also in different directions. For an orga-
nization to function properly, it is necessary not only to include all its
members in the information policy but, above all, to involve them in
internal communication. For this purpose, it is crucial to plan and stimu-
late communication at four levels: interpersonal, group, inter-group, and
organizational.
A British researcher D. McQuail, who specializes in political and mass
communication, analysed the categories of participants and civil society
organizations involved in these processes, paying particular attention to
mass communication and its actual and potential social role. A result of
these analyses is the so-called communication pyramid (Fig. 2.3), which
consists of the following levels in the communication process: intraper-
sonal, interpersonal, group, institutional (organizational), and mass.
The base of the pyramid is intrapersonal communication, being the
biological and psychological processes which occur in one’s mind before
or during the formulation of a message. This level is associated with
absorbing and processing information. Interpersonal communication is
next and takes place between two or three people, usually in the form
of a dialogue or conversation. This kind of communication plays a very
important role in shaping social relations, being in fact a prerequisite for
their establishment. The level of group (or intra-group) communication
refers to communication processes that take place within various social
groups and involve a larger number of participants. Both the interpersonal
and the intra-group level are associated with direct contact and interac-
tion between the interlocutors. As the first, more or less formalized, social
48 Communication in Organizational Environments

Mass
communi-
cation

Institutional level

Group level

Interpersonal level

Intrapersonal level

Fig. 2.3 Communication pyramid (levels) according to McQuail

(Source: adapted from McQuail (2010, p. 18))

structures emerged, inter-group communication appeared. Due to the

fact that not all members of large groupings have direct personal con-
tact, communication processes in this case occur at an inter-group level.
Another element of McQuail’s pyramid is organizational (institutional)
communication, which appeared as a result of the emergence of political
power and its formal structures, as well as the first civil society, business,
and economic organizations, which were characterized by a division of
labour. Communication at this level is formalized, power and control
are defined, and the roles of the participants are clearly specified. The
principal issues, therefore, are interaction, cooperation, and the creation
of norms and standards for communication (Dobek-Ostrowska 2007,
p. 18). It should be noted that at this level, intra-institutional (organi-
zational) communication is sometimes distinguished from institutional
communication to refer to communication within an organization.
Institutional communication is defined as “systemic communication;
organized and conducted by specially designated institutions whose
tasks, methods and forms of activity at this level are clearly defined” (see:
Górski 2000, pp. 97–118). The level of mass communication is at the top
of McQuail’s pyramid. This is widespread and plays a critical role in the
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 49

transmission of public information to the whole of society. Its important

distinguishing feature is the relatively small number of communication
acts, which, however, are characterized by greater weight (Górski 2006,
p. 55). The other levels of the pyramid are characterized by higher num-
bers of communication events, and the lower the level, the larger their
number.
Analysing the communication process within a company, it should
be noted that it occurs basically on two levels: interpersonal and group
(including intra- and inter-group). Intrapersonal communication, due to
its psycho-sociological nature, remains outside the realm of interest for
researchers studying internal communication. The same is true of mass
communication because the vast majority of organizations do not com-
municate with their members through the mass media. An exception
here can be the rapidly developing social media, which are used to com-
municate with staff. In turn, the organizational (intra-institutional) level
comprises acts of communication that occur between the organization
and its employees, as well as those from the interpersonal and group level.
Therefore, for the purposes of this work the authors assume that inter-
nal communication takes place on the interpersonal and group levels.
Interpersonal communication is based on personal relationships between
individual members of an organization, while group communication is a
result of the emergence and activity of formal or informal groups within
a company, which are positioned in its overall organizational structure.
An example of a formal group may be a task group or a command group;
and of an informal one, an interest group or a friendship group. Thus,
the communication practice within an organization is determined by the
existence of certain types of groups and their position in the organiza-
tional structure.
Regarding issues raised during the course of communicating, one can
distinguish the following communication levels: phatic, instrumental,
and emotional (affective) (Kożusznik 2007, p.  158). The phatic level
occurs when the interlocutors hold a conversation on topics which do not
require disclosing emotions, ideas, or values (e.g. a conversation about
the weather between two employees who work in different departments
and do not know each other). The instrumental level concerns the direct
transmission of information or instructions in an unemotional manner,
50 Communication in Organizational Environments

the aim of which is to induce a particular behaviour in the interlocutor.

In contrast, at the emotional level the act of communication includes a
disclosure of ideas, emotions, and values, and the interlocutors want to
get to know and understand each other better. Practice shows that com-
munication between employees usually takes place at the instrumental
level, but the phatic and emotional levels also play an important role in
the whole communication process.
Organizational communication involves the flow of both formal and
informal information within a closed, hierarchical structure. This pro-
cess takes place in four directions: vertical downwards, vertical upwards,
horizontal, and diagonal (Potocki et al. 2011, pp. 14–15). Vertical down-
wards communication involves primarily the transfer of all kinds of
information or instructions from superiors to subordinates and is the
most commonly used direction of communication in organizations. It is
also a way of motivating and evaluating employees as well as encouraging
them to express their opinions. In turn, upwards communication can be
identified with a specific kind of feedback, understood in this case as the
response of subordinates to the information coming from their superi-
ors. It consists mostly of information on the progress of employees’ tasks
and any difficulties related to the performance of their duties. It is also a
way for employees to express their opinions and communicate their spe-
cific expectations, requests, or complaints. The frequency with which this
kind of communication is used depends to a large extent on the manage-
ment style and the openness of the superiors. Horizontal communica-
tion, on the other hand, occurs between employees occupying the same
position in the structure, for example, members of the same working
group. Within this kind of communication employees can consult, con-
firm, or supplement information, or agree on common positions, all of
which in turn lead to solving problems occurring in the company. Since
horizontal communication is considerably less formal than vertical com-
munication, it contributes to maintaining informal contacts between
employees. As regards diagonal communication, this takes place between
the representatives of different levels of management, usually outside the
formal corporate hierarchy. It concerns the same aspects as horizontal
communication but is rarely used within the so-called official channels.
When making a plan of internal communication, most attention is paid
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 51

to the vertical flow of information. As mentioned earlier, upwards com-

munication is of particular importance as it provides feedback on all the
actions taken by the company to communicate with its employees.
Due to their complexity, internal communication processes in orga-
nizations occur in various forms and require the use of a wide range of
instruments. Depending on the participants of communication, their
needs, the purpose for which the process was initiated, as well as the
nature of the organizational environment in which it occurs, it is possible
to distinguish a number of forms of communicating in the workplace.
When analysing these forms, the following criteria for their division
are adopted: the method of conveying information, the nature of the
relationship between the sender and receiver, and the aim of the sender
(Sobkowiak 2005, p. 112).
As regards the way in which information is conveyed, communication
can take the following forms:

• verbal and non-verbal,

• oral and written,
• direct and indirect.

Non-verbal communication does not use words or it can take place

alongside verbal communication. The volume and pitch of the voice,
intonation, gestures, and facial expression accompany the words, but in
themselves they are not verbal means of communication. According to
Z.  Nęcki, non-verbal communication includes the following elements:
gestures, facial expressions, touch and physical contact, the vocal channel,
paralinguistic sounds, physical appearance, looks and eye contact, physi-
cal distance between interlocutors, body posture during the conversation,
and the organization of the environment in which communication takes
place (Nęcki 2000, pp. 185–186). On the other hand, verbal commu-
nication involves the exchange of information in a verbal form, which
takes place in the course of speaking, listening, writing, and reading. In
this form of communication, the personality traits of the interlocutors as
well as their skills with regard to particular communicative activities play
a significant role. These include such factors as the level of intelligence,
knowledge, and education; the range of vocabulary; the command of
52 Communication in Organizational Environments

the language in which communication is held; the way of formulating

thoughts; and the attitude to listening.
Verbal communication can be oral or written in form. In the former
case, the act of communication is more personalized and allows both
parties to constantly modify their behaviour, observe and receive non-
verbal cues, as well as continuously evaluate the process. The sender
can control the feedback and make sure that the message has been
correctly understood by the recipient. Moreover, this form of com-
munication shapes social relations in an organization, and positively or
negatively influences employee involvement. However, oral commu-
nication also has some disadvantages, which hinder its effectiveness.
First of all, the information content transmitted in this way is fleet-
ing because the addressee is not always able to accurately reproduce
the words of the sender. In addition, if the final recipient receives the
message through a third party, the risk of distortion increases. Written
communication, on the other hand, is characterized by a higher degree
of formalization, as well as the greater durability of the information
conveyed in this way. For these reasons, feedback is often difficult or
absent altogether. Oral communication creates better conditions for
communication not only at the phatic level, but also at the affective
and instrumental levels, while written communication works mainly
at the instrumental level.
Direct communication requires personal contact between the sender
and the receiver, and the information is expressed verbally. Therefore,
it takes the form of a conversation, debate, discussion, interview, and
so on. In the case of indirect communication, an exchange of oral or
written information takes place via various transmitters. The sender
and the receiver can use these transmitters at the same time or at dif-
ferent times. It is important to distinguish indirect interpersonal com-
munication from indirect mass communication. B.  Dobek-Ostrowska
describes the former as media-based communication, occurring in a situ-
ation when the participants of the process are not able to meet in per-
son (Dobek-Ostrowska 2007, p. 22). This includes communicating by
phone, Internet, intranet, e-mail, or fax. Indirect mass communication
involves relaying information to the public through the mass media and
is not normally used for contacts with employees.
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 53

In terms of the types of relationship existing between the sender and

the receiver in the literature, communication is classified into the follow-
ing forms:

• one-way and two-way,

• symmetrical and asymmetrical,
• formal and informal,
• defensive and supportive.

In the case of one-way communication, which in an organizational

context can be equated to information, messages are transferred only
from the sender to the recipient (or recipients). The person initiating the
process does not therefore expect the receiver to confirm receiving and
understanding the message. In the case of two-way communication, it
is important to the sender to elicit and retain feedback, that is, obtain
information about how the recipient understands the received message.
Thus, both sides of the process alternately assume the roles of the sender
and the receiver.
Symmetrical communication refers to situations in which the people
who communicate with each other have the same (or similar) social or
professional status. Hence, this will occur, for example, between same-
level managers or employees occupying equivalent positions in the orga-
nization. In contrast, asymmetrical communication occurs when one of
the parties involved in the communication process has a privileged posi-
tion, and the other accepts this superiority (Oleksiuk 2007, p. 85). This
dominance may stem from the power one party has (e.g. parent-child,
superior-subordinate), but also their knowledge as well as professional or
general experience.
The process of communication in an organization can take place
via both formal and informal routes (channels). The essence of formal
communication is the transmission of information through methods
established by organizational procedures. Therefore formal communi-
cation is associated with the employees’ positions, responsibilities, areas
of cooperation, as well as relations of primacy or subordination. It is
also affected by various normative and legal regulations which determine
who should communicate, as well as where, when, with whom, for what
54 Communication in Organizational Environments

purpose, and how. It must be noted, however, that formal channels of

communication do not necessarily have to be explicitly defined in the
documentation relating the functioning of a company, but may be the
result of established customs and corporate culture. In every company,
apart from formal communication, there is also informal communica-
tion. This is extremely important because for employees it is often the
most reliable channel of communication. Informal communication com-
prises any spontaneous acts of communication between employees which
occur outside formal channels. Given that such communication relates to
the most recent and thus the most interesting information for the person-
nel, and that it is relayed by well-informed members of the organization,
this form is usually faster and more reliable than formal communication
(Gros 2003 pp. 158–159). In subsequent parts of this work the authors
will discuss the instruments used in these two communication channels.
The processes of communication between members of an organiza-
tion may induce different kinds of behaviour within individual com-
municative acts. Thus, communication can be defensive or supportive
(Stoner and Wankel 1994, p. 443). In the former case, the behaviour of
the sender, for example, judging, manipulating, or demonstrating supe-
riority, triggers defensive reactions in the recipient. In contrast, if com-
munication takes a supportive form, the behaviour of the party initiating
the process encourages the recipient to continue the contact. Supportive
communication is often associated with a focus on problem solving, an
objective view of the situation, or empathy.
Taking into account the goal that the sender intends to achieve, a distinc-
tion can be made between informative and persuasive communication. If a
communicative act is undertaken in order to create mutual understanding
and agreement between the participants, and the sender does not intend
to influence the attitudes and behaviour of the recipients, communication
is considered to be informative. A specific goal of this type of communica-
tion can be sharing knowledge, explaining, or instructing. The object of the
exchange is accurate, complete, and objective information. In organizational
communication this can take the form of a report, a training session, or
a briefing. Persuasive communication, on the other hand, is designed to
promote an interactive relationship between the parties of the process. Its
primary aim is to form, strengthen, or change behaviours and attitudes,
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 55

according to the intention of the sender. Persuasive communication is

interactive in nature, which stems from the actions of the recipient who
is willing to behave according to the intentions of the other party, expect-
ing in return the fulfilment of their vital needs (Dobek-Ostrowska 2007,
pp. 31–33). By using this form of communication it is possible to promote
such behaviour by employees that leads to their increased involvement in the
performance of duties and a stronger sense of belonging to the organization.
All the above forms of social communication are, to a greater or lesser
extent, used for communicating within companies. Their use is adapted
to the individual organization, specific situations, the characteristics
of the sender and the recipient, as well as the objectives that are to be
achieved. These types and forms of communication are not disjoint cat-
egories, which means that communication can be, for example, at the
same time direct, verbal, and persuasive.
The specific tasks of internal communication can be performed at
various levels, and involve different directions and ways of communicat-
ing. For this process be successful, it is necessary to carefully select the
instruments used and adjust them to specific communication needs. It
should be emphasized that communication in an organization must first
and foremost be effective; thus, this selection of instruments should be
determined by the ability to use them appropriately. These aspects will be
further discussed later in this chapter.

2.5.2 Instruments for Communication in Enterprises

Those responsible for the management of internal communication

within an organization have at their disposal a number of instruments
enabling effective communication between employees. In the literature
one can find different classifications of such instruments or, in other
words, communication techniques for use in the workplace. According
to T.  Pszczołowski, a communication technique should be understood
as a method of communicating information, which is done consciously
and intentionally, utilizes a specific channel, and is based on specific rules
and procedures (as cited in: Potocki et al. 2011, p. 15). Due to the mul-
titude of available technical means, it is impossible to make an exhaustive
56 Communication in Organizational Environments

classification of these tools. Nevertheless, some authors have attempted

to systematize the available instruments of internal communication.
A number of classifications for the communication tools used in
organizations can be found in the literature related to public relations,
particularly internal public relations. The criteria for the classification
of communication techniques used in this field include the following
(Trębecki 2012, p. 85):

• the medium of communication,

• the vector of communication,
• the degree of instrument formalization,
• user options regarding the recipients,
• initiator for creating instruments,
• communication channel,
• operating mode,
• degree of interactivity,
• reason for activating an instrument.

The multitude of criteria, however, does not translate into either an in-
depth analysis of the issue, or the popularity of creating classifications for
these tools. For practical reasons, the most commonly used classifications
are based on three criteria: the medium of communication, the vector of
communication, and the degree of formalization of the instruments.
Using a classic differentiating criterion, namely the medium of com-
munication, S. Cutlip, A. Center, and G. Broom proposed assigning each
of the tools into one of three groups (2006, p. 237):

• printed, such as internal magazines, bulletin boards, and so on;

• spoken, such as meetings or talks;
• visual, such as teleconferences, business television, or video presentations.

Similar criteria for the classification of communication techniques

used in organizations were adopted by A. Szymańska. She distinguished
the following techniques: verbal (e.g. meetings, corporate public address
systems, walk-rounds), written (e.g. newsletters, company magazines,
business improvement competitions), visual (e.g. business TV, corporate
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 57

video), and multimedia (e.g. teleconferences, events, staff integration

meetings) (Szymańska 2004, p. 271).
Another classification for the instruments of internal communication is
based on the criterion for the vector of communication. Accordingly, there
are tools which are used in vertical downwards, vertical upwards, horizon-
tal, and diagonal communication. It should be noted that employing the
direction of communication as a classification criterion means that some
instruments, such as an intranet or a meeting, can be assigned to more than
one group. Thus, in this kind of classification the categories overlap.
When dividing communication techniques according to their degree of
formalization, formal and informal tools can be distinguished. The former
are instruments which are used in accordance with a previously estab-
lished and approved system, that is, a method prescribed by organizational
procedures. Therefore, they are often referred to as official. On the other
hand, informal techniques most often emerge spontaneously and are a
manifestation of employee activity, or a result of the so-called need of
the hour. The existence and popularity of unofficial tools can, but does
not necessarily have to, be proof of the ineffectiveness of formal channels.
Communicating with the help of informal instruments can support for-
mal communication, or it can weaken, replace, or even block it.
Assuming that the most useful criteria for the classification of com-
munication tools in an organization are the direction of communication
and the degree of formality, the following types of instruments can be
distinguished (Olsztyńska 2005, p. 44):

• instruments of formal vertical downwards communication,

• instruments of formal vertical upwards communication,
• instruments of formal horizontal communication,
• instruments of informal communication.

It should be noted that because of their specificity and possibilities for

application, some communication techniques can belong to more than
one group. The diverse range of tools used in the context of internal com-
munication is shown in Table 2.2.
As the discussion in this subsection shows, in the literature one
can find a number of detailed studies on the instruments of internal
58 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 2.2 Instruments of internal communication

Instruments of formal communication
Vertical Instruments of
downwards Vertical upwards Horizontal informal
communication communication communication communication
Direct Direct Direct Direct
conversation conversation conversation conversation
Bulletins Employee Celebrating Open doors
E-mail opinion and festivals events
Discussion satisfaction E-mail E-mail
forums for surveys Discussion Shared lunch of
employees E-mail forums for managers and
Corporate Discussion employees employees
magazines forums for Employee Management by
Helplines employees integration wandering
Intranet The board’s events around (MBWA)
Video consultation Intranet Informal
conferences hours Video employee
Social media Intranet conferences discussion
Memoranda Video Training courses forums
Newsletters conferences Social media Informal
Textbooks Social media Independent relationships
Company radio Trade union coordinators between
Reports publications Staff employees
Notice boards Suggestion and secondment to Informal meetings
Meetings complaint teams in which after work
boxes they are not Gossip and
Meetings formally rumours
employed Supporting
Meetings employee
Interdisciplinary initiatives
teams Working groups
Source: Own compilation (Based on Olsztyńska (2002, pp. 174–175),
Rozwadowska (2002, pp. 124–130))

communication. That is why the authors will restrict themselves to indi-

cating only some of the issues associated with it.
The most effective instrument of formal communication within an
organization is believed to be direct informative conversation. Its indis-
putable advantage is that it does not require any financial outlays; nev-
ertheless, it is not used as often as it ought to be. This is mainly due
to the fact that interlocutors simply do not have enough time, but also
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 59

to the size of organizations and the fragmentation of personnel. It is

therefore necessary to use other available tools, such as e-mail, intranet,
meetings, the board’s consultation hours, corporate magazines, newslet-
ters and notice boards, as well as training courses and integration events
for employees. E-mail and intranet have a special place in the modern
set of instruments used for internal communication, and their strong
position is connected on the one hand with the continuous development
of new technologies, and on the other with advancing globalization,
which is manifested in the increasing internationalization of the activi-
ties conducted by organizations. These tools are fast, have a large scope
of influence, and what is more, they are characterized by a low unit cost
in reaching the recipient. In addition, an intranet as a communications
platform enables the sharing of knowledge and facilitates access to vari-
ous documents used in everyday work.
In recent years there has been an increased interest in instruments con-
nected with new technologies used for the purposes of formal internal
communications. The vast majority of large companies use an intranet
and electronic newsletters to communicate with the personnel. Regardless
of the size of an organization, almost all of them maintain regular e-mail
correspondence with staff. In addition, larger companies use such tools
as discussion forums or chat rooms for employees. Communication
managers also recognize the growing role of social media. These are
understood as a variety of solutions in electronic communication that
enable their users to publish content which is later made available to oth-
ers. However, the use of such instruments for internal communication is
for various reasons problematic. Firstly, social media are very difficult to
control, and their users are often not very mindful as regards sharing their
ideas and thoughts on such sites. This can give rise to image crises within
the organization, which are hard to overcome without raising accusations
of censorship or concealing facts. Secondly, the attitudes of managers to
social media vary. The supporters emphasize their strengths, such as a
faster transfer of information, creating the image of a modern company,
or facilitating the sharing of knowledge and experience between employ-
ees. The opponents, on the other hand, fear the misuse of such instru-
ments by the staff. Thirdly, employees are also rather sceptical about
using social media for internal communication. This may be connected
60 Communication in Organizational Environments

with the fact that people treat social networking sites as a private space.
Consequently, including them in the set of internal communication
instruments is viewed as an attack on their personal life outside the work-
place. Despite the controversy surrounding this issue, it should be noted
that in these days of dominance for computer communication it will be
difficult to avoid an increasingly common use of the instruments offered
by new technologies.
As regards informal communication, the most significant role in the
process of organizational communication is played by gossip and rumours.
They appear most often as a reaction to situations that are important
to employees, cause concern or be of interest. Given the fact that it is
impossible to completely eliminate rumours, the specialists responsible
for internal communication should limit their role by creating good
communication networks. Employees who have full access to the neces-
sary information will not seek information during informal conversa-
tions. Due to the development of information technology as well as their
attractiveness in the eyes of the recipients, rumours spread very rapidly,
for example, via e-mail. Therefore, managers should try to forestall them
in order to avoid the impression of concealing certain facts from the staff.
In enterprises with an organizational culture based on trust and open
communication, rumours can bring some benefits, such as satisfying the
need for belonging, alleviating anxiety, or helping to understand the deci-
sions made by the management. In companies where the information
flow is unclear and the work environment is negative, rumours are likely
to exacerbate any bad relations between the various organizational units,
employees, and management.
An interesting tool for informal communication is the so-called
Management by Wandering Around (MBWA). It involves managers vis-
iting subordinates at their workplaces. During such visits the superior
talks to the staff on topics relating to the performance of their duties
and seeks to find out what problems employees face in their daily work,
and tries to find a satisfactory solution to these problems. By encourag-
ing subordinates to be open and honest in expressing their opinions, the
manager not only collects valuable information, but also has the opportu-
nity to probe into the attitudes of the subordinates and their opinions on
the functioning of the organization. Properly used MBWA attests to the
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 61

superior’s engagement in the problems of the employees as well as helping

the staff to understand the various decisions taken by the management.
The choice of the appropriate communication tools in an organization
is determined by a number of factors, such as the size of the company,
the nature of its business, the market in which it operates, the available
resources (including financial resources), and the direction of the infor-
mation flow. The instruments used should primarily be adjusted to the
information needs of the organization and its members. When selecting
the instruments of internal communication it is crucial to remember that
the flow of information in an enterprise should be clear, efficient, and
consistent with expectations and, above all, the needs of the employees.

References
Argenti, P.  A., & Forman, J. (2002). The power of corporate communication:
Crafting the voice and image of your business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Armstrong, M. (2011). Zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi, wydanie V rozszerzone.
Warsaw: Oficyna a Wolters Kluwer Business.
Bhattacharyya, D. (2011). Performance management systems and strategies. Noida:
Dorling Kindersley, Pearson Education in South Asia.
Bovée, C.  L., & Thiel, J.  V. (2000). Business communication today (Wyd. 6).
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. (2001). Organizational identity linkages between
internal and external communication. w: F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (red.),
The new handbook of organizational communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cornelissen, J. (2004). Corporate communications theory and practice. London:
Sage.
Cutlip, S., Center, A., & Broom, G. (2006). Effective public relations (Wyd. 9).
Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Cyfert, Sz., & Krzakiewicz, K. (2006). Organizacja i zarządzanie—przegląd
podstawowych pojęć. w: K.  Krzakiewicz (red.) Teoretyczne podstawy orga-
nizacji i zarządzania. Poznań: Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
Dobek-Ostrowska, B. (2007). Podstawy komunikowania społecznego. Wrocław:
Wydawnictwo Astrum.
Dunmore, M. (2002). Inside-out marketing: How to create an internal marketing
strategy. London: Kogan Page Limited.
62 Communication in Organizational Environments

Górski A. (2000). Komunikowanie instytucjonalne w systemach informacji

naukowej. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Zarządzania i Bankowości w
Poznaniu, nr 3(11), Poznań.
Górski, A. (2006). Podstawy i techniki komunikowania społecznego. Poznań:
Wydawnictwo Forum Naukowe.
Griffin, E. (2003). Podstawy komunikacji społecznej. Gdańsk: Gdańskie
Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Gros, U. (1994). Organizacyjne aspekty zachowania się ludzi w procesach pracy.
Prace Naukowe AE w Katowicach, nr 131, Katowice.
Gros, U. (2003). Zachowania organizacyjne w teorii i praktyce zarządzania.
Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Kalla, H. A. (2005). Integrated internal communications: A multidisciplinary per-
spective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(4), 302–314.
Karlöf, B. (1993). Key Business Concepts: A Concise Guide. London: Routledge.
Kast, F., & Rosenzweig, J. (1970). Organization and management, A systems
approach. New York: McGraw Hill.
Kotarbiński, T., cop. 2000, Traktat o dobrej robocie, Zakład Narodowy im.
Ossolińskich. Wrocław-Warsaw-Cracow: Polskiej Akademii Nauk, .
Koźmiński, A., & Piotrowski, W. (red.). (1996). Zarządzanie. Teoria i praktyka.
Warsaw: PWN.
Koźmiński, A., & Piotrowski, W. (red.). (2006). Zarządzanie. Teoria i praktyka.
Warsaw: PWN.
Kożusznik, B. (2007). Zachowania człowieka w organizacji. Warsaw: Polskie
Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.
Lesca, E., & Lesca, H. (1995). Gestion de l’information. Qualité de l’information
et performances de l’entreprise. Paris: Editions Litec.
Makin, P., Cooper, C., & Cox, C. (2000). Organizacje a kontrakt psychologiczny.
Zarządzanie ludźmi w pracy. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Marek, S., & Białasiewicz, M. (red.). (2008). Podstawy nauki o organizacji.
Warszawa: PWE.
Mazzei, A. (2010). Promoting active communication behaviours through inter-
nal communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
15(3), 221–234.
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (edycja 6). London:
Sage.
Miller, K. (1996). Who are we and what are we doing? Management
Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 3–4.
Moczydłowska, J. (2006). Zachowania organizacyjne w nowoczesnym
przedsiębiorstwie. Katowice: Śląsk.
 2 Internal Communication in an Organization 63

Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organization. The executive edition. San Francisco/

Thousand Oaks: Berrett-Koehler Publishers/Sage.
Nęcki, Z. (2000). Komunikacja międzyludzka. Cracow: Antykwa.
Oleksiuk, A. (2007). Problemy organizacji. Materiały do studiowania. Warsaw:
Key Text sp. z o.o.
Olsztyńska, A. (2002). Komunikacja wewnętrzna w przedsiębiorstwie, w:
H.  Mruk (red.), Komunikowanie się w biznesie. Poznań: Akademii
Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
Olsztyńska, A. (2005). Marketing wewnętrzny w przedsiębiorstwie: koncepcja i
narzędzia wspomagające integrację działań wewnętrznych organizacji. Poznań:
Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
Pateyron, E. A. (1994). Le management stratégique de l’information: applications
à l’entreprise. Paris: Economica.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (2011). W poszukiwaniu doskonałości w bizne-
sie: doświadczenia najlepiej zarządzanych firm Ameryki. Warsaw: MT Biznes.
Potocki, A. (2001). Komunikacja wewnętrzna w przedsiębiorstwie. Cracow:
Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie.
Potocki, A., Winkler, R., & Żbikowska, A. (2011). Komunikowanie w organizac-
jach gospodarczych. Warszawa: Difin.
Quirke, B. (2008). Making the connections: Using internal communication to turn
strategy into action. Hampshire: Gower Publishing Limited.
Reinsch, N.  L. (1996). Business communication: Present, past, and future.
Management Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 27–49.
Robbins, S.  P., & DeCenzo, D.  A. (2002). Podstawy zarządzania. Warsaw:
PWE.
Rozwadowska, B. (2002). Public relations. Teoria, praktyka, perspektywy. Warsaw:
Studio Emka.
Scholes, E. (red.). (1997). Gower handbook of internal communication.
Hampshire: Gower Publishing Limited.
Smeltzer, L.  R. (1996). Communication within the manager’s context.
Management Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 5–26.
Sobkowiak, B. (2005). Interpersonalne i grupowe komunikowanie się w orga-
nizacji. Poznań – Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Forum Naukowe.
Stoner, J. A. F., & Wankel, C. (1994). Kierowanie. Warsaw: PWE.
Szymańska, A. (2004). Public relations w systemie zintegrowanej komunikacji
marketingowej. Wrocław: Unimex.
Tourish, D., & Hargie, O. (2004). The crisis of managements and the role of
organizational communication. In D. Tourish & O. Hargie (Eds.), Key issues
in organizational communication (pp. 1–16). London: Routledge.
64 Communication in Organizational Environments

Trębecki, J. (2012). Konwergencja obszarów komunikowania wewnętrznego.

Ujęcie teoretyczne i empiryczne. Poznań: Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w
Poznaniu.
Tyrała, P. (2004). Zachowania organizacyjne w procesach zarządzania:
współzależność czynników osobowościowych i prakseologicznych. Toruń: Adam
Marszałek.
Weick, K.  E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New  York:
McGraw-Hill.
Wellin, M. (2010). Zarządzanie kontraktem psychologicznym. Zaangażowanie
pracowników w zwiększenie wydajności firmy. Warsaw: Oficyna a Wolters
Kluwer Business.
Wickham, P.  A. (2000). Financial times corporate strategy casebook. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
 3
Functions and Objectives of Internal
Communication

This chapter presents various approaches to the systematization of the

objectives as well as the definition of the functions of communication in
an organization. The subject of the analysis will be the results of empiri-
cal research into the links and relationships between the objectives and
the functions of internal communication and the areas of their mutual
influence. Moreover, the authors will indicate the factors that positively or
negatively affect the implementation of the objectives and the fulfilment
of the functions of communication in an organization. What is more, the
objectives and the functions of internal communication declared by orga-
nizations will be compared with those that are fulfilled and implemented
in reality. Also, bottlenecks in the implementation of the objectives and the
fulfilment of the functions of internal communication will be discussed.

3.1 The Systematization of Internal

Communication Objectives
In most publications relating to the analysis of internal communica-
tion, the authors focus on particular areas of its utilization. It is there-
fore regarded as an instrument and considered in terms of its application
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 65
A. Rogala, S. Bialowas, Communication in Organizational
Environments, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54703-3_3
66 Communication in Organizational Environments

in internal marketing (Olsztyńska 2005; Dunmore 2002; Ahmed and

Rafiq 2002), personnel marketing (Baruk 2006), internal public relations
(Rozwadowska 2002; Theaker 2001), and organizational communica-
tion management (Jablin and Putnam 2002; Manning 1992). However,
an increasing number of authors perceive internal communication as an
important, complex and independent process which involves many areas
of influence and fulfils a range of objectives (Bartoli 1994; Lesca and
Lesca 1995; Scholes 1997; Clutterbuck et al. 2003; Kalla 2005; Quirke
2008; Smith and Mounter 2008; Wright 2009; Rogala 2011).
As demonstrated in the first chapter, one of the basic characteristics
of communication is its purposefulness. Thus, organizational communi-
cation should have a clearly defined set of objectives which are realized
through the acts of communication undertaken within an organization.
In management, an objective is understood as “an objectively and subjec-
tively future desired state or outcome of an organization’s activities, pos-
sible and expected to be achieved at a time or over a period of time within
the time frame of a long-term or short-term action plan” (Krzyżanowski
1992, p. 180). The set objectives fulfil four basic functions (as cited in
Cyfert and Krzakiewicz 2006, pp. 17–18):

• they constitute guidelines for the activities of an organization’s mem-

bers since they help them understand where the company is going and
how the realization of specific objectives contributes to its progress;
• they enable and facilitate planning and coordination;
• they help to direct the attention of lower-level employees to the imple-
mentation of the company’s principal objective;
• they form the basis for formulating the standards in measuring the
efficiency of operations.

In order to function effectively, a company should aim for the greatest com-
patibility of all its objectives, including the objectives of individuals, groups,
and the organization as a whole. Importantly, it is not possible to achieve full
compatibility of goals, and for organizations to develop they are advised to
accept deviations in this respect. The issue of measuring the achievement of
organizational objectives will be analysed in detail in Chap. 5 of this book.
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 67

The manner in which an organization formulates the goals of internal

communication reflects its importance for the organization (Rostek and
Kurda 2005, p. 6). They can be defined in terms of business strategy
(e.g. supporting the implementation of corporate strategy or building
commitment); in terms of processes (informing, educating employees);
and/or in terms of activities (integrating, creating an open information
flow). In the literature relating to organizational communication, differ-
ent approaches to systematizing its objectives can be found. They vary in
the degree of detail, selectivity, or comprehensiveness as regards the goals
and functions of internal communication, as well as in the starting point
for the classification (Asif and Sergeant 2000; Robbins 2004; Donjean
2006; Rosengren 2006; Stankiewicz 2006; Rencker 2008; Malaval and
Décaudin 2012). Nevertheless, the objectives of organizational com-
munication, as mentioned in each of the proposed classifications, fall
into one of two groups: those related to informing and those related to
communicating.
Such a division was adopted by Ch. Donjean, according to whom
internal communication is a management tool that enables the imple-
mentation of organizational strategies. Thus, its main aim is to convey
to the personnel any information that is necessary for both the smooth
functioning of the organization and the proper fulfilment of the employ-
ees’ duties. The flow of information helps employees in performing the
tasks they are assigned, as well as promoting interaction between them.
On the other hand, when analysing communication in a company in the
context of communicative objectives, it is assumed that it will lead to
employees developing a sense of identity with the organization and their
work, as well as understanding the position they have in the company
and the responsibilities associated with it. Thus, the specific objectives
within this area are the following (Donjean 2006, p. 15):

• developing the so-called spirit of an organization,

• motivating workers,
• developing organizational culture and values,
• promoting cooperation,
• creating a positive image of a company among employees,
• increasing employee integration.
68 Communication in Organizational Environments

It should be remembered that internal communication should be

conducted in such a way as to make each employee feel valuable, both as
an employee and as a person.
The objectives of organizational communication formulated by
E. Rencker are also classified into the two aforementioned groups: those
related to information and communication. In the former, communica-
tion activities are intended to provide information necessary for the every-
day functioning of a company and propagate the company policy. The
latter group comprises objectives which are connected with developing a
sense of belonging to an organization and enabling employees to express
themselves through communication (Rencker 2008, p. 36). It should
be noted that, according to the author, the hierarchy of these goals has
changed in recent years. The aspects related to the information dimension
still remain the main axis of communication activities within enterprises,
but the communication dimension is becoming increasingly important.
In contrast, P. Malaval and J.M. Décaudin divide all the objectives of
internal communication into three groups: those related to informing,
motivating, and uniting with an organization (2012, p. 528). The first
group of objectives concerns the transmission of operational informa-
tion, advice, requests, and instructions. Motivational objectives, in turn,
are implemented within human resource management. Their primary
focus is the development of a positive work environment that contributes
to increasing the involvement of employees in the performance of their
duties. Finally, internal communication also fulfils objectives related to
building the attachment of people to the company in which they work,
as well as uniting them around its corporate mission and values. In sum-
mary, accomplishing the information objectives allows employees to
understand the organizational strategy, while fulfilling the others makes
them more willing to participate in its implementation.
Communication practitioners and strategists distinguish four main
objectives of communication (Détrie and Broyez 2001, p. 62):

• explaining the mission and goals of a company,

• building organizational identity and culture,
• addressing the information needs of employees,
• developing employees’ sensitivity to a company’s goals.
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 69

These objectives should be implemented in the order in which they

are listed in order to, on the one hand, create an appropriate atmosphere
around communication, and on the other hand, develop good relations
with employees and their sense of belonging to an organization. This is
particularly important in the turbulent conditions in which today’s orga-
nizations operate and the resultant necessity for constant change.
In a more detailed approach to the objectives of internal communica-
tion, the starting point for analysing the systematization of objectives is
the direction of the flow of information within an organization. Hence
one can distinguish objectives pursued by top-down, bottom-up, and
horizontal communication (Stankiewicz 2006, pp. 20–26). A compila-
tion of these objectives is presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Objectives of internal communication according to the direction of

information flow in an organization
Downwards
communication Upwards communication
(top-down) (bottom-up) Horizontal communication
Informing about the Informing about Coordinating activities
objectives and rules work-related issues Enabling employees to
of an organization Informing about expand their
Informing about technical, information resources
organizational organizational etc. and share information
practice and deficiencies Disseminating
procedures Providing feedback on information for which
Conveying detailed information received there is a demand
task instructions within top-down Satisfying the need for
Expressing communication affiliation,
expectations Expressing employees’ understanding events
towards expectations and Solving problems related
organization requests to cooperation between
members Conveying ideas and organizational units
Informing employees suggestions Resolving conflicts
of their performance Providing information between employees
Evaluating about relationships Building and
Providing motivation between employees strengthening ties
Advising, instructing between employees
Encouraging
employees to
express their views,
opinions etc.
Source: Own compilation based on Stankiewicz (2006, pp. 20–26)
70 Communication in Organizational Environments

As regards the flow of information from superiors to subordinates,

the primary objective of internal communication is to inform about
the tasks, rules of conduct, procedures, and requirements of employees.
Additionally, it serves to motivate, evaluate, and encourage employees
to share their opinions. Bottom-up communication, on the other hand,
provides superiors with information about the problems faced by staff in
the performance of their duties, as well as the expectations and needs of
employees. Moreover, it enables the transmission of ideas and suggestions
to the management. The main aim of horizontal communication, in turn,
is coordinating the activities performed by employees as well as acquiring,
updating, and disseminating information. Horizontal communication
leads to satisfying employees’ needs for affiliation, helps to solve problems
and settle conflicts arising in the context of cooperation between different
organizational units, as well as building and strengthening ties between
people in the workplace. All the specific objectives pursued within the
main channels of communication, as characterized by J. Stankiewicz, can
be classified into one of two groups, as in the previous systematizations,
related to either information or communication.
The objectives of internal communication can also be analysed in rela-
tion to the following aspects (Détrie and Broyez 2001, pp. 64–65; Wasiela-
Jaroszewicz 2008, p. 123; d’Almeida and Libaert 2014, pp. 22–29):

• organizational culture,
• institutional,
• management,
• personal,
• marketing,
• political.

More or less specific objectives for the communication process are for-
mulated in each of the indicated areas. The aspect relating to organiza-
tional culture requires building a common identity, values, norms, and
patterns, as well as the so-called team spirit. On the other hand, in the
institutional aspect, internal communication is intended to inform work-
ers about all the matters which are essential for a company’s operation, and
also those which are important from the point of view of employees as well
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 71

as strengthening cooperation. The management aspect mainly involves

objectives related to explaining the mission and goals of an organization,
stimulating the activity of its members, as well as preparing them for
changes. The personal aspect is associated with creating a climate of trust,
strengthening mutual respect, and developing communication skills. In
the marketing aspect the most important goal involves integration and
identification with an organization and its offering. The political aspect
includes objectives relating to predicting conflicts as well as communicat-
ing specific information within an organization before it is relayed to the
external environment. Comparing the areas enumerated above with enter-
prise practices, the following pillars of modern internal communication
strategies can be recognized (Wasiela-Jaroszewicz 2008, p. 124):

• information, education and development;

• motivating through enriching the culture of an organization and creat-
ing bonds between its members;
• offering the possibility of obtaining and transmitting information nec-
essary for achieving objectives.

Regardless of the classification scheme adopted, all the objectives of

communication within an organization can be cognitive and/or prag-
matic, the latter being more important from the perspective of shaping
organizational behaviour (Gros 2003, p. 148). The cognitive goal is con-
sidered to be the identical understanding of a message by the sender and
the recipient. Therefore, this denotes a situation in which the message
received is the same as the one sent. Unfortunately, such a result may not
be sufficient, because in the context of effective internal communication
the so-called pragmatic goal should also be attained. This involves achiev-
ing the result desired by the sender, for example, inducing an employee to
perform a particular task.
As the foregoing discussion clearly shows, the range of objectives in organi-
zational communication is multidimensional and complex, and extends far
beyond the information aspect, that is, providing employees with informa-
tion necessary for the proper performance of their duties. Communication
processes in enterprises shape and change employee behaviour so as to create
better cooperation. Good communication builds understanding for actions
72 Communication in Organizational Environments

taken by the management, increases loyalty and a sense of identification

with a company (Olsztyńska 2002 p. 167). It can also positively or nega-
tively affect motivation, and create or destroy a unique corporate culture.
For the purposes of this book, it is assumed that the set of internal commu-
nication objectives includes the following sub-objectives:

• providing employees with the up-to-date information necessary for

their proper functioning in the organization;
• preparing employees for upcoming changes;
• uniting employees around the mission, values, and strategy of the
organization;
• creating a positive atmosphere in the workplace;
• building a positive image of the company among employees;
• motivating employees to work for the benefit of the company.

These activities are addressed to all members of an organization, and the

processes can be initiated by the executive director, middle management,
the human resources department, as well as rank-and-file employees. It
should be noted that, in the opinion of the authors, it is important to
achieve both cognitive and pragmatic objectives.

3.2 The Functions of Internal Communication

Appropriately defined and pursued objectives of internal communication
make it possible to realize various functions, including those of a general
nature. R. Jakobson, one of the theorists in structural linguistics, distin-
guishes six factors in his model of linguistic communication: addressor
(sender), addressee (receiver), context (referent), code, message, and con-
tact (channel). Each of these factors is related to a certain function that
occurs if a given factor dominates over the others in the communication
process. Thus, the author lists the following fundamental functions of
communication (as cited in Ollivier 2010, p. 115):

• expressive, that is, expressing the feelings of the sender, as well as their
attitudes or status (the sender factor dominates);
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 73

• conative—consists in exerting influence on the receiver and determining

the attitude of the receiver to the message as well as the impression the
message made on them (the receiver factor dominates);
• referential—also called representational, makes it possible to deter-
mine facts, especially the relationship between the message and the
object to which it refers (the context factor dominates);
• metalingual—serves to explain the elements of the code and deter-
mine whether the message is intelligible to the recipient (the code fac-
tor dominates);
• phatic—fulfils the need for maintaining contact between people (the
contact factor dominates);
• poetic—focuses on the message for its own sake, that is, a message is
organized according to its form (the message factor dominates).

Referring to the findings of communication ethnologists, Jakobson rec-

ognizes that communication can serve the purpose of maintaining con-
tact without conveying information, and therefore fulfil only the phatic
function. At the same time he argues that there are no acts of commu-
nication which fulfil only one of the functions. Moreover, he states that
a message does not and cannot contain the whole meaning, which can
only be found in the entire act of communication (Zalewska-Turzyńska
2012, p. 83) because meaning is also derived from the context, code, and
means of communication.
In addition to general communication functions, the processes of com-
munication in organizations also fulfil other roles. Based on an analysis of
the literature, J. Wasiela-Jaroszewicz compiled an extensive description of
the following functions of internal communication (2008, pp. 111–112):

• informational,
• cognitive,
• protective,
• integrative,
• developmental,
• regulatory,
• motivational,
• recreational.
74 Communication in Organizational Environments

The informational function enables the perception of stimuli,

phenomena, and information in order to become acquainted with the
environment, and leads to forming interpersonal relationships based on
knowledge and information. This function makes it possible for mem-
bers of the organization to receive the necessary information to make
decisions, fulfil their responsibilities, and coordinate actions. The cogni-
tive function, in turn, is associated with learning about oneself and the
environment. It also makes it possible to compare oneself with others
and assess one’s strengths and weaknesses. Within the protective func-
tion, people can identify possible threats or factors that can contribute
to the achievement of the objectives based on observations of the envi-
ronment, as well as receiving or issuing advance warnings of potential
problems. The integrative function is the basis for creating interpersonal
relationships, as well as satisfying the needs for contact and social belong-
ing. It unites the individuals in the organization into a single entity, syn-
chronizing selected activities. The developmental function permits the
transmission of information about cultural and social heritage, as well
as stimulating individuals to develop and increase their understanding
of themselves and the world around them. The regulatory, or control,
function involves specifying tasks, the division of power, and the scope
of responsibility involved in making checks. Thus, it defines the norms
and rules of a company as well as the obligations of its employees, while
at the same time supervising their conduct. The motivational function
serves to stimulate the involvement of employees in accomplishing orga-
nizational objectives. Finally, the recreational function is associated with
the perception and understanding of art as well as the formation of social
contacts. Acts of communication make it possible for people not only to
get to know themselves and the environment, and exchange information
or impressions, but also to meet the needs of belonging and membership
in a group. This applies to communication not only in the private sphere,
but also in the work environment. It should be stressed that communica-
tion in the workplace fulfils at least one of the following functions (see
Robbins 2004, pp. 220–221; Rosengren 2006, p. 45):

• information, providing the information necessary for making deci-

sions and working effectively;
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 75

• motivation, based on the assumption that access to information about

their performance increases the engagement and effectiveness of
employees;
• emotional expression, which makes it possible for employees to express
feelings and satisfy their social needs, since for many people the work-
place is their primary source of interpersonal contacts;
• control, because a flow of information relating to employee perfor-
mance makes it possible to supervise their behaviour.

All the above roles are a natural consequence of the objectives of inter-
nal communication, so for such communication to be effective, they must
interpenetrate and complement one another. A properly managed com-
munication process in an organization provides a range of opportunities for
shaping and modifying the behaviour of workers (Asif and Sergeant 2000).
As a result, it can help in building a sense of identification with a company
as well as stimulating the commitment and motivation of the personnel.
Furthermore, a transparent information policy reduces the risk of misun-
derstandings, disagreements, and conflicts between different departments.

3.3 The Realization of Internal Communication

Objectives in Organizations in the Light
of Research
As the discussion contained in the previous chapters clearly shows, inter-
nal communication is a phenomenon which requires a complex, multi-
dimensional analysis. In order to draw any inferences about the process
as a whole, it is necessary to take into account a range of different issues,
such as the directions and forms of communication, the classification
of its objectives as well as the instruments used. A fragmentary view, for
example, analysing only the instruments or the functions, assesses only
a specific area associated with communication, but it is difficult to infer
the reasons for a particular state of affairs. An analysis of the effective-
ness of communication in organizations will be discussed in detail in the
Chap. 5 of this book.
76 Communication in Organizational Environments

3.3.1 Research Methodology1, 2

The aim of the research was to investigate the determinants of com-

munication addressed to employees, as well as evaluating their weight
and impact on the effectiveness of internal communication activities.
In order to obtain the most comprehensive picture of the issues under
examination, the study used the concept of triangulation, which involves
the application of several different data sources, methods, theories, or
researchers. This includes the following basic principles (Jahoda, as cited
in Flick 2011, p. 77):

• simultaneous use of qualitative and quantitative methods in order to

capture the social reality,
• collecting both objective facts and subjective opinions,
• supplementing current observations with historical material,
• discreet monitoring of spontaneous everyday activity and conducting
planned direct interviews.

The above features show that triangulation makes use of both differ-
ent approaches and different methodological perspectives. Importantly,
if possible they should be treated as equal. All research methods have
certain drawbacks, and the findings may in varying degrees reflect the
typical weakness of the method used (Allwood 2012, p. 1427; Babbie
2009, p. 135; Kelle 2001, p. 5). Thus, researchers argue that the use of
more than one method for solving a research problem must be regarded
as a valuable strategy, intended to lead to achieving a significantly higher
level of knowledge (see: Onwuegbuzie et al. 2009, p. 115). According
to the approach proposed by J.W. Creswell et al. (2003, p. 218), stud-
ies based on mixed methods involve the parallel or sequential collecting
and analysing of data obtained by using both methods. In this approach,
either the results obtained by using one of the methods can be prioritized,

1
The research project was financed with the Polish National Science Center resources, granted
on the basis of the decision number DEC-2011/03/N/HS4/00701.
2
The research was carried out for the purpose of Rogala’s dissertation. However, analyses published
in this book were enriched by new data transformation made in cooperation with Bialowas.
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 77

or both kinds of data are treated equally. For the purposes of this study,
the parallel approach was adopted, and the findings were treated as com-
plementary, neither of the methods being considered superior (Lopez-
Fernandez and Molina-Azorin 2011, p. 1461; Oleinik 2011, p. 860).
The selection of methods was based on an analysis of the literature,
which made it possible to identify the practices used so far in this area.
For technical reasons, it was necessary to divide the research within enter-
prises into two stages. In the first stage quantitative methods were used in
the form of a direct survey and an online survey, while in the second stage
a qualitative method was used in the form of a focus group interview.
The quantitative research for the purposes of the present study was
conducted among the employees of companies in the Wielkopolska
region, selected using random and quota sampling in the period from
December 2012 to March 2013. In order to ensure an adequate number
of representatives of all groups of employees, two quotas were specified:
the particular department and the management level. Then, a proce-
dure of systematic sampling was used, and respondents who were to take
part in the study were randomly selected from the lists of employees in
the companies analysed. People whose workstation was equipped with
a computer completed an online questionnaire, which was posted on
the limeservice website (www.limeservice.com) at an address dedicated
to the employees of each company. The remaining respondents provided
answers in the traditional way. For each company, the number of respon-
dents corresponded to the total number of workers. Overall, a total of
1398 people completed the questionnaires, including 787 in a direct
form and 611 in an online form. Ultimately, 1354 respondents qualified
for further analysis, of which 751 participated in the traditional survey
and 603 in the online survey.
As mentioned earlier, the sample comprised representatives of small,
medium, and large enterprises. The majority of respondents (64.4%)
were from organizations with more than 250 employees. Such a large
percentage of respondents from this group resulted from the assumption
that research should be conducted on a sample representative of the total
number of employees in each company. The next largest group, 26.7% of
respondents, worked in medium-sized companies (between 50 and 249
employees), and 8.2% of the respondents indicated a small company as
78 Communication in Organizational Environments

their place of work. The responses related to the size of the organization
also included 0.7% of answers indicating the micro-enterprise option.
However, the respondents who chose this option in fact represented small
companies.
In line with the assumptions of the research, the pool of respondents
included representatives at various levels of management. To simplify
matters, three groups were distinguished in each of the companies anal-
ysed based on the organizational structure: the staff at low, middle, and
top management level. The first group included rank-and-file employees
who did not perform any management functions. The representatives of
the second group were mid-level managers, and those representing the
third group were people occupying the highest positions in the company.
The largest group (63.3%) were representatives of low-level management
and the second largest were mid-level managers (27.3%). The large per-
centage of respondents working in middle management positions resulted
from the character of the organizations analysed. In manufacturing com-
panies, regardless of their size, there are many positions which involve
overseeing the work of larger or smaller groups of subordinates. The same
applies to large service enterprises characterized by geographic dispersion.
The smallest proportion of respondents, just 3.3%, represented top level
management (6.1% of people did not give any answer).
When characterizing the research sample, it is also important to men-
tion the length of service in an organization. Among the respondents,
the majority had worked for the company for up to 2 years (32.3%) or
between 3 and 6 years (30.1%). The people who had been employed by
their companies for over 10 years made up 16.3% of the respondents. A
similar percentage (15.4%) was recorded for people who had worked for
their companies between 7 and 10 years. Interestingly, only three out of
all the analysed organizations had operated for longer than 20 years. The
rest of respondents did not answer this question.
As regards the demographic characteristics directly relating to respon-
dents, the analysis took into account gender, age, and level of educa-
tion. More than half of the respondents (734 people) were men, and
563 of the respondents were women. Fifty-seven respondents did not
answer the question regarding gender, probably in order to ensure greater
anonymity. The sample comprised people of all ages. The largest group
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 79

were workers aged between 25 and 34 years—29.2%. The second largest

category comprised people between 45 and 54 years of age—21.5%. The
age groups of 35–44 years and 55 years and over accounted for 18.5%
and 16.9% of the sample, respectively. The smallest percentage of respon-
dents were people between the ages 18 and 24—only 8.7% of the total
number of respondents. A few respondents (5.2%) did not give a clear
answer regarding their age.
Regarding the education of the respondents in the sample, various lev-
els were represented. The majority of the people had vocational educa-
tion (33.5%) or secondary education (26.7%). Those who had higher
education qualifications at undergraduate or graduate level accounted for
4.3% and 21.8% of the respondents, respectively. In turn, 8.1% of the
respondents ended their education at primary level (between 14 and 16
years old). Also, in the case of this question, 5.6% of people did not give
any answer.
The quantitative study used a survey questionnaire in the form of both
a direct and an online survey. The main part of the questionnaire was
divided thematically into three blocks. The first block related to an assess-
ment of the information flow within the organization; the second to an
assessment of the activities conducted as part of marketing communica-
tion addressed to employees; and the third to the determinants and the
systematization of internal communication objectives. A representative
group of employees was examined in each of the companies included
in the study. The results obtained were processed statistically using the
methods of correlation analysis and descriptive statistics. This made it
possible to verify or falsify the research hypotheses and achieve the cogni-
tive goal of the study.
In the second stage of the research, a qualitative research method was
used in the form of a focus group interview (FGI), also known as a focus
group discussion or group depth interview. Focus group interviews, of
which there were 23, were conducted among purposively selected employ-
ees of manufacturing and service companies employed at the same level.
Focus group discussions were held with representatives at all levels in the
businesses hierarchy. It should be added that in the case of small enterprises
with a flat organizational structure in which the top management consisted
of a single person managing the entire company, the number of interviews
80 Communication in Organizational Environments

was limited to two: one for the low and one for the middle level. To select
respondents, the following purposive selection criteria were used:

• common selection criterion: people employed in a given company on

the basis of an employment contract
• differentiating selection criteria: working at a specific level in the busi-
ness hierarchy;
• additional criteria related to the purpose of the study: working in tech-
nical positions, working in administrative positions;
• additional criteria related to the research methodology: excluding peo-
ple responsible for the flow of information in the organization.

Each interview proceeded according to the funnel technique, that is,

from general issues to specific questions, following a previously prepared
script, and was held in groups of 4–12 people forming a so-called affin-
ity group. This made respondents feel secure, which helped them express
candid opinions on problematic issues. The largest number of partici-
pants were low-level management representatives (72 people), while the
smallest group of respondents represented top-level managers (16 peo-
ple), who by virtue of their positions have better access to information.
As regards the type of business activity, 62 participants worked for manu-
facturing companies, 51 for service companies, and 29 for hybrid busi-
nesses (manufacturing and merchandising or service and merchandising).
The qualitative research in the form of focus group interviews was
conducted on the companies’ premises, in appropriately designed rooms
which ensured freedom of expression. The discussions were led by trained
moderators. Every interview was also attended by a person taking the
minutes. In addition, each interview was recorded using a voice recorder.
The study used an interview script, which was divided into three the-
matic blocks:

• block I—identifying the determinants and making a general assess-

ment of internal communication in the organization;
• block II—evaluating the company’s activities in respect of marketing
communication addressed to employees and attempting to assess their
impact on the external image of the firm;
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 81

• block III—defining the term effectiveness and evaluating the realization

of internal communication objectives.

Within the first block, the discussion focused on the participants’

experiences in the areas of communication in the workplace, determi-
nants of internal communication, and the communication atmosphere
in the analysed company. In addition, it attempted to define the charac-
teristic attributes of high-quality communication. In the second part, the
participants assessed the activities and tools used for internal marketing
communication and tried to define the areas of its influence. Finally, the
last block addressed issues related to the effectiveness of internal com-
munication, the determinants of proper communication within the
organization, as well as the impact of organizational communication on
the perception of the company by employees and on the organizational
climate and culture. During the interviews some projective techniques
were also used, such as word association tests, sentence completion tests,
lexical gap-filling tests, and drawing tests.

3.3.2 Assessment of the Realization of Internal

Communication Objectives

According to respondents, by far the most important goal of internal

communication is providing employees with the up-to-date information
necessary for their proper functioning in the organization (average rank
in the hierarchy—4.46; the higher the value, the more important the
objective).3 As regards the next three positions in the hierarchy, the differ-
ences are fairly small—the objectives seem similar in terms of importance.
These are uniting employees around the mission, values and strategy of
the organization (average 3.56), motivating employees to act for the ben-
efit of the organization (average 3.48), and creating a positive atmosphere
in the workplace (average 3.44). Less important objectives are those

3
The respondents indicated a hierarchy by ordering the objectives from the most to the least impor-
tant (rating scale). To facilitate interpretation, the results have been recalculated so that higher
values indicate more important objectives (1—the least important objective, 6—the most impor-
tant objective).
82 Communication in Organizational Environments

related to building a positive image of the company among employees

(average 3.12) and preparing employees for upcoming changes (average
2.94) (Fig. 3.1).
Analyses of secondary sources revealed that corporate communication
is commonly identified with the flow of information, while the remaining
objectives tend to be overlooked. It was decided, therefore, to ascertain
whether the information objective is indeed the overriding one. Thus, the
following hypothesis was formulated and tested:

H1
There is a statistically significant superiority for the information objective
of internal communication in relation to the remaining objectives.
In order to check whether there is a statistically significant difference in the
assessment of the importance of the individual objectives of internal com-
munication, an analysis of intra-group variance was performed. The analysis
revealed statistically significant differences between the objectives. In turn, on
the basis of multiple comparisons, the following findings were made:

Providing employees with the up-to-date

informationnecessary for their
proper functioning in the organisation

Uniting employees around the mission,

values and strategy of the organisation

Motivating employees to work for

the benefitof the company

Creating a positive atmosphere in

the workplace

Building a positive image of

the company among employees

Preparing employees forupcoming

changes

1 2 3 4 5 6

Fig. 3.1 Hierarchy of the importance of internal communication objectives

(Source: Own research)
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 83

• the importance of the objective related to conveying information was

rated higher than that of the other objectives;
• the importance of the objectives related to motivating employees, cre-
ating a positive atmosphere in the workplace, and uniting employees
around the mission, values, and strategy were rated higher than those
related to building a positive image among employees and preparing
them for upcoming changes;
• no statistically significant differences were recorded as regards the
assessment of the importance of the objectives related to motivating
employees, creating a positive atmosphere in the workplace, and unit-
ing employees around the mission, values, and strategy of the
organization;
• the importance of the objective related to building a positive image of
the company among employees was rated higher than that of the
objective related to preparing the staff for upcoming changes.

In the light of the above findings, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed.

The objectives under discussion can be divided into two groups: hard
and soft. The hard objectives are conveying to employees the up-to-date
information necessary for their proper functioning in the organization
and preparing them for upcoming changes, whereas the group of soft
objectives consists of building a positive image of the company among
employees, creating a positive atmosphere in the workplace, motivating
employees to work for the benefit of the company, and uniting employees
around the mission, values, and strategy of the organization. Comparing
the mean values obtained for the two groups, one could conclude that the
hard objectives are more important to employees; however, it is difficult
to draw definite conclusions because the hard objectives include both the
most important and the least important one.
The hierarchy of objectives presented above is based on average values,
which reflect the views of all the employees surveyed. However, the per-
ception of the importance of the objectives varies significantly between
respondents. Accordingly, it may be interesting to see how the individual
characteristics of workers affect the perception of the importance of spe-
cific objectives. Table 3.2 shows statistically significant differences in the
assessments of the importance of each objective.
84 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 3.2 Characteristics connected with assigning relatively greater importance

to specific objectives
Length of
service and
Gender and management
age Education level Employment
Preparing Women, the Below
employees for youngest tertiary
upcoming employees education
changes
Building a Vocational Longest
positive image service
of the company
among
employees
Motivating Tertiary Largest
employees to companies
work for the
benefit of the
company
Uniting Men Higher
employees management
around the levels
mission, values
and strategy of
the
organization
Providing Tertiary Longer service Small firms
employees
with the
up-to-date
information
necessary for
their proper
functioning in
the
organization
Source: Own research

When analysing differences in assessing the importance of internal

communication objectives, it can be observed that the results obtained
for young people and people with primary education diverge most mark-
edly from the overall results (Spearman’s rank correlation 0.62 and 0.67
respectively). Different rankings for the objectives can also be observed
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 85

for employees with the longest service in the company (0.73), those in
positions at a high management level (0.74), those employed in manu-
facturing (0.79), and those in companies with Polish capital (0.79). The
hierarchies for specific segments are presented in Table 3.3.
A particular ranking of internal communication objectives reflects
the way a person thinks about communication within an organization.
Therefore, it can serve as a basis for segmenting the personnel according
to their expectations in terms of communication. Importantly, it would
be difficult to define the segments according to the features specified pre-
viously for individual objectives because they are not fully consistent.
However, based on similarities in the rankings of all the objectives it is
possible to indicate homogeneous groups which understand organizational
communication in distinct ways. The data obtained allowed the authors
to identify three principal groups of people with a specific attitude to
communication: Task-oriented, Relationship-oriented and Balanced (see
Table 3.4).
The first group are task-oriented employees, for whom the primary
purpose of internal communication is providing the information which
is necessary for their proper functioning in the organization. They treat
the other objectives as moderately important, and the objective which
they consider to be the least significant is creating a good atmosphere at
work. This group comprises people who, when they are in the workplace,
are focused on performing their tasks rather than establishing relation-
ships with colleagues. This explains their approach to the hierarchy of
internal communication objectives. The group of task-oriented employ-
ees accounted for 40% of respondents, and the percentage of people
belonging to this category increased in direct proportion to the length
of service.
The second group are relationship-oriented employees; these are those
who believe that internal communication should unite workers (this
objective is regarded as decidedly more important than in the other seg-
ments), create a positive atmosphere in the workplace, and build a posi-
tive image of the company among staff. For these employees, conveying
the information necessary for their proper functioning in the organiza-
tion, which the other segments indicated as the most important objec-
tive, is of least importance. This group comprises people with high social
Table 3.3 Hierarchies in the importance of internal communication objectives for selected segments
86

Age High
group Primary Longest management Manufacturing Polish
Total 18–24 education service level firms capital
Preparing employees 1 4 3 1 1 1 1
for upcoming changes
Building a positive 2 1 1 4 2 3 2
image of the
company among
employees
Creating a positive 3 5 5 2 4 5 4
atmosphere in the
workplace
Motivating employees 4 3 2 5 3 4 5
to work for the
benefit of the
company
Uniting employees 5 2 4 3 5 3 3
around the mission,
values and strategy of
the organization
Communication in Organizational Environments

Providing employees 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
with the up-to-date
information necessary
for their proper
functioning in the
organization
Source: Own research
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 87

Table 3.4 Average ratings of internal communication objectives for specific

segments
Task- Relationship-
oriented oriented Balanced
Importance of the objective “Providing 5.09 1.44 5.24
employees the with up-to-date
information necessary for their proper
functioning in the organization”
Importance of the objective “Motivating 3.68 3.26 3.39
employees to work for the benefit of
the company”
Importance of the objective “Creating a 1.69 4.4 4.69
positive atmosphere in the workplace”
Importance of the objective “Uniting 3.41 4.44 3.3
employees around the mission, values
and strategy of the organization”
Importance of the objective “Building a 3.69 3.93 2.21
positive image of the company among
employees”
Importance of the objective “Preparing 3.44 3.51 2.17
employees for upcoming changes”
Source: Own research

needs, for whom the workplace is not only a place where they earn their
living but also a platform for creating social relationships. Relationship-
oriented employees like to feel part of a group and work in a friendly
atmosphere. This group is the smallest, with only one in five respon-
dents belonging to it. The percentage of people belonging to this group
decreases along with the level of education, but increases with the size of
the company. This employee profile is relatively more frequent in service
companies as well as in companies with foreign and mixed capital.
Finally, the third group are balanced employees. These are people for
whom the most important objective of internal communication, just as
for task-oriented workers, is providing the up-to-date information nec-
essary for them to function, but they also attach importance to creat-
ing a positive atmosphere at work. The objectives related to building
a positive image of the company among staff and preparing them for
upcoming changes were considered as relatively less important. The bal-
anced employees combine the features of the other two segments, though
88 Communication in Organizational Environments

depending on the circumstances, they may assume a more task- or

relationship-oriented attitude. This group accounted for 41% of respon-
dents, and it was observed that the percentage of people belonging to this
group increases in direct proportion to the level of management.
The above analyses reveal that for the objective related to motivating
employees to work for the benefit of the company, the results are almost
identical. Thus, the perception of this objective is not a factor differenti-
ating employees. In the case of the other five objectives, however, signifi-
cant differences can be observed (see Fig. 3.2).
These differences are manifested by obtaining high values for two of the
groups and significantly lower values for the other group. Consequently,
differences related to disregarding certain objectives are more marked
than those related to treating some objectives as particularly important.

Providing employees with the up-

to-date information necessary for
their proper functioning in the
organisation
5.5
5
4.5
4
Preparing employees for 3.5 Motivating employees
upcoming changes 3 to work for the benefit
of the company
2.5
2
1.5
1

Building a positive image

of the company among Creating a positive
employees atmosphere
in the workplace

Balanced
Uniting employees around the Relationship-oriented
mission, values and strategy of the
organisation Task-oriented

Fig. 3.2 The importance of internal communication objectives for specific

segments
(Source: Own research)
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 89

In light of the above analyses it can be concluded that the most impor-
tant objective of internal communication is providing employees with
the up-to-date information necessary for their proper functioning in the
organization. This is consistent with the conclusions which can be found
in the existing literature on organizational communication. However,
taking into account the differences in assessing the significance of the spe-
cific objectives by the representatives of different segments, it is necessary
to examine the expectations of employees and adjust the instruments to
the needs of specific groups.

3.4 Barriers and Obstacles to Internal

Communication
Communication is inextricably linked with people, their individual
qualities, character, attitudes, perceptions, and habits. For this reason,
communication in the workplace is susceptible to different kinds of cor-
ruption or distortion. These constitute communication barriers, leading
to decreased efficiency in the process. Obstacles to effective communica-
tion in an organization include, among others, physical, linguistic, emo-
tional, perceptual, and cultural ones, as well as those related to a lack of
trust and credibility. Based on the categorizations of barriers proposed by
A. Olsztyńska and B. Sobkowiak, the authors of this work suggest divid-
ing them into five categories:

• interpersonal barriers relating to the sender and the receiver;

• barriers resulting from inadequate awareness and communication
skills of interlocutors;
• barriers relating to the quality of information;
• barriers generated by the physical and social environment;
• organizational barriers.

Table 3.5 shows specific examples of the obstacles from the different
groups that may impede or prevent communication in an enterprise.
The barriers associated with the participants in the communication
process include such features of character and personality as a lack of
90 Communication in Organizational Environments

openness and assertiveness, or an unwillingness to communicate.

Other significant obstacles are the stereotypes and prejudices held by
communication participants as well as their tendency to judge, their
emotional reactions, previous experience and individual perception. The
group of barriers resulting from inadequate awareness and communica-
tion skills comprises, among others, selective listening, language differ-
ences, as well as errors relating to the inept formulation, transmission, or
reception of messages. Obstacles connected with the quality of commu-
nication arise when the content of the message does not match the expec-
tations of the recipient, for example, relaying delayed, ambiguous, or false
information. Barriers generated by the physical and social environment
include, for example, too little or too much time among communication
participants, imposing on them certain forms of communication, as well
as noise and physical interference. The most important organizational
barriers are differences in status or power, a management style which does
not promote communication, excessive formalization of the behaviour of
organization members, and a corporate culture and climate that discour-
age openness in expressing opinions. The existence of too many barriers
or their inadequate elimination may significantly restrict or even prevent
effective communication. Therefore, it is essential that all the various
members of an organization should receive appropriate training in the
area of internal communication.
As mentioned above, internal communication can be disrupted by a
number of factors, the influence of which makes its objectives difficult
or impossible to achieve. Some of these factors cause disturbances to
interpersonal relations, which in turn result in misunderstandings and
reduced effectiveness of the communication process. Such disruptions
can be divided into three groups (Szymańska 2004, pp. 40–41):

• disruptions associated with the content of messages or their interpreta-

tion (e.g. communicating differing beliefs, intentions, or motives; the-
matic inconsistency between the interlocutors’ utterances);
• disruptions associated with the formal aspects of the communication
process (e.g. incorrect organization of conversation; negative non-
verbal cues from the listener; verbal misunderstandings);
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 91

Table 3.5 Classification of barriers to organizational communication

Types of Examples of barriers
Interpersonal barriers Lack of openness and unwillingness to
relating to the sender communicate
and the receiver Individual perception and previous experience
Lack of assertiveness
Stereotypes and prejudice
Blocking and filtering information, e.g. relaying
only good information
Emotional reactions
Lack of trust and credibility
Tendency to judge
Barriers resulting from Selective listening
inadequate awareness Inadequate control of message content
and communication skills Inadequate emission
Inadequate speech dynamics
Inadequate understanding of non-verbal cues
Language differences
Barriers relating to the Conveying information of minor relevance to the
quality of information recipient
Delays in information transfer
Discrepancies between words and actions
Ambiguity
Message not adjusted to the recipient
Different meanings of words and expressions
Information overload
Falsifying information
Barriers generated by the Noise and physical barriers
physical and social Too little or too much time
environment Imposing the form of communication
Presence of outsiders
Organizational barriers Considerable differences in status and/or power
Large number of management layers
Superiors exercising their power in a way that does
not promote communication
High degree of behaviour formalization
Actual span of control exceeds the potential span
of control
Organizational culture discouraging openness
Reluctance to express opinions, especially negative
ones (e.g. through fear)
Lack of trust in managers and/or colleagues
Discouragement and lack of motivation
Source: Own compilation (Based on Olsztyńska (2002, p. 176), Sobkowiak (2005,
pp. 217–243))
92 Communication in Organizational Environments

• disruptions caused by the insufficient communication skills of the

parties (e.g. inappropriate speech dynamics; lack of congruence
between the verbal, vocal and non-verbal channels; linguistic or gram-
matical incorrectness).

Eliminating these disruptions is not an easy task, but it is necessary

for improving internal communication. A particularly important ele-
ment appears to be a continuous improvement in the communication
skills of communication participants because it is they that bear the great-
est responsibility for the effectiveness of communication. Taking into
account the importance of a smooth information flow in an enterprise
for its proper functioning, it is crucial to constantly monitor the existence
and impact of communication barriers. Particular attention should be
given to organizational barriers, those related to the quality of informa-
tion and those generated by the physical and social environment.
Thus, managing the processes of organizational communication
requires knowledge of the factors that make it difficult to achieve a high
degree of effectiveness. As part of this study, a group of respondents
were asked to identify the main obstacles to achieving high effectiveness
regarding the communication activities addressed to employees. The sub-
jects were asked to refer to the specific objectives of internal communica-
tion (see Table 3.6).
The respondents primarily highlighted the inconsistency of communi-
cation activities, resulting in the transmission of incomplete information,
as well as the insufficient involvement of managers in this area. They
emphasized that managers tend to avoid conveying information which
could trigger negative emotions. As a result, the employees’ knowledge
about any upcoming changes, strategies implemented, or plans relating
to the development of the company, is unsatisfactory. In addition, the
respondents pointed to an unclear division of responsibilities between
departments and a focus on internal competition as factors which hinder
the achievement of internal communication objectives relating to moti-
vation and creating a positive atmosphere in the workplace. They also
signalled problems resulting from a lack of confidence among staff, inef-
fective incentive systems, and unsatisfactory development opportunities.
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 93

Table 3.6 Factors which in the opinions of the respondents hinder the implemen-
tation of specific internal communication objectives
Objective of internal
communication Factors which hinder its implementation
Conveying up-to-date Lack of a coherent information system and
information to consequently conveying information which is
employees incomplete, unreliable, unclear, inconsistent,
transferred irregularly or delayed
Unspecified tools for communicating with employees
at different levels
Technical problems, for example, no Internet access,
malfunctioning e-mail
Low interest in communication at the lower
organizational levels, for example, poorly developed
notice boards
Size, type of activity and expanded organizational
structure
Inadequate communication culture in the company
Motivating employees Remuneration system inadequate for expectations
to work for the good Issuing individual instructions and not familiarizing
of the organization employees with the overall issue
Superiors lack of confidence in the employees and
their skills
Ineffective system of incentives and employee
assessment, for example unclear rules, a small set of
instruments for both rewarding and disciplining
employees, insufficient number of pro-employee
actions
Unsatisfactory development opportunities, including
the amount of training, and inadequate support for
employees in implementing innovative ideas
Unclear areas of responsibility of managers and
organizational units, which results in shifting
responsibility to other workers
Creating a positive Not enough integration events for the people from
atmosphere in the all departments
workplace Superiors lack of confidence in the employees and
their skills
Inadequate communication culture in the company
Orientation towards results and productivity, hence
low team activity and lack of time for briefings
Individual departments and people are interested in
pursuing their own objectives, which does not
promote integration and contributes to the rat race
(continued)
94 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 3.6 (continued)

Objective of internal
communication Factors which hinder its implementation
Uniting employees Not enough integration events for the people from
around the corporate all departments
mission, values and Lack of information about the company’s
strategy achievements or sharing its success with employees,
which makes them feel unappreciated
Insufficient communication on the part of executives,
especially with regard to strategic objectives and the
direction of the company’s development
Building a positive Not enough integration events for the people from
image of the all departments
company among the Lack of information about the company’s activities for
employees the local community
Tense working atmosphere, which sometimes leads to
unnecessary conflicts
Preparing employees Managers’ conviction that ordinary workers “should
for upcoming not know too much,” so only “convenient”
changes information is relayed or staff are informed “after
the event”
Infrequent meetings between representatives of
different departments, which means that employees
do not know other people/organizational units
Insufficient communication on the part of executives,
particularly with regard to introducing changes
Source: Own compilation based on the findings of quantitative and qualitative
research

References
Ahmed, P. K., & Rafiq, M. (2002). Internal marketing: Tools and concepts for
customer-focused management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Allwood, C. A. (2012). The distinction between qualitative and quantitative
research methods is problematic. Quality and Quantity, 46, 1417–1429.
Asif, S., & Sargeant, A. (2000). Modelling internal communications in the
financial services sector. European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 299–318.
Babbie, E. (2009). Podstawy badań społecznych. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN.
Bartoli, A. (1994). Communication et organisation. Pour une politique générale
cohérente. Paris: Les Éditions d’Organisation.
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 95

Baruk, A. (2006). Marketing personalny jako instrument kreowania wizerunku

firmy. Warsaw: Difin.
Clutterbuck, D., Hirst, S., & Cage, S. (2003). Talking business: Making com-
munication work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003).
Advanced mixed methods research designs. w: A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie
(red.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Cyfert, S., & Krzakiewicz, K. (2006). Organizacja i zarządzanie—przegląd pod-
stawowych pojęć. In K. Krzakiewicz (Ed.), Teoretyczne podstawy organizacji i
zarządzania. Poznań: Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
d’Almedia, N., & Libaert, T. (2014). La communication interne de l’entreprise.
Paris: Dunod.
Détrie, P., & Broyez, C. (2001). La communication interne au service du manage-
ment. Paris: Editions Liaisons.
Donjean, C. (2006). La communication interne. Liège: Edi.pro.
Dunmore, M. (2002). Inside-out marketing: How to create an internal marketing
strategy. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Flick, U. (2011). Jakość w badaniach jakościowych. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe PWN.
Gros, U. (2003). Zachowania organizacyjne w teorii i praktyce zarządzania.
Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (2002). The new handbook of organizational com-
munication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. London: Sage.
Kalla, H. A. (2005). Integrated internal communications: A multidisciplinary
perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(4),
302–314.
Kelle, U. (2001). Sociological explanations between micro and macro and the
integration of qualitative and quantitative methods (43 paragraphs). Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Art. 5.
Krzyżanowski, L. (1992). Podstawy nauk o organizacji i zarządzaniu. Warszawa:
PWN.
Lesca, E., & Lesca, H. (1995). Gestion de l’information. Qualité de l’information
et performances de l’entreprise. Paris: Editions Litec.
Lopez-Fernandez, O., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2011). The use of mixed methods
research in the field of behavioural sciences. Quality and Quantity, 45,
1459–1472.
96 Communication in Organizational Environments

Malaval, P., & Décaudin, J. M. (2012). Pentacom: Communication corporate,

interne, financière, marketing b-to-c et b-t-b (wydanie 3). Paris: Pearson France.
Manning, P. K. (1992). Organizational communication. New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
Oleinik, A. (2011). Mixing quantitative and qualitative content analysis:
Triangulation at work. Quality and Quantity, 45, 859–873.
Ollivier, B. (2010). Nauki o komunikacji. Warsaw: Oficyna Naukowa.
Olsztyńska, A. (2002). Komunikacja wewnętrzna w przedsiębiorstwie. w:
H. Mruk (Ed.), Komunikowanie się w biznesie. Poznań: Akademii
Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
Olsztyńska, A. (2005). Marketing wewnętrzny w przedsiębiorstwie: koncepcja i
narzędzia wspomagające integrację działań wewnętrznych organizacji. Poznań:
Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Burke, J., & Collins, K. M. T. (2009). Call for mixed analy-
sis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative
approaches. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 114–139.
Quirke, B. (2008). Making the connections: Using internal communication to turn
strategy into action. Hampshire: Gower Publishing Limited.
Rencker, E. (2008). Le nouveau visage de la com’ interne: réflexions, méthodes,
guide pour l’action. Paris: Éditions d’Organisation Groupes Eyrolles.
Robbins, S. P. (2004). Zachowania w organizacji. Warsaw: PWE.
Rogala, A. (2011). The influence of internal communication on different aspects of
company functioning. w : 11th International Marketing Trends Conference, pod
red. Françoise Conchon – Paryż : ESCP-AEP European School of Management.
Rosengren, K. E. (2006). Communication: An introduction. Londyn/Thousand
Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.
Rostek, R., & Kurda, K. (2005). Nie listonosz, ale strateg. Personel nr 11, pp. 6–7.
Rozwadowska, B. (2002). Public relations. Teoria, praktyka, perspektywy. Warsaw:
Studio Emka.
Scholes, E. (Ed.). (1997). Gower handbook of internal communication. Hampshire:
Gower Publishing Limited.
Smith, L., & Mounter, P. (2008). Effective internal communication. Londyn:
Kogan Page Limited.
Sobkowiak, B. (2005). Interpersonalne i grupowe komunikowanie się w orga-
nizacji. Poznań – Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Forum Naukowe.
Stankiewicz, J. (2006). Komunikowanie się w organizacji. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo
Astrum.
Szymańska, A. (2004). Public relations w systemie zintegrowanej komunikacji
marketingowej. Wrocław: Unimex.
 3 Functions and Objectives of Internal Communication 97

Theaker, A. (2001). The public relations handbook. London/New York: Routledge.

Wasiela-Jaroszewicz, J. (2008). Komponenty procesu komunikacji w
przedsiębiorstwie. In S. Lachiewicz (Ed.), Komunikacja wewnętrzna w orga-
nizacjach sieciowych (pp. 98–127). Łódź: Monografie Politechniki Łódzkiej.
Wright, M. (Ed.). (2009). Gower handbook of internal communication. Surrey:
Gower Publishing Limited.
Zalewska-Turzyńska, M. (2012). Komunikowanie się w organizacji – studium
prakseologiczne. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
 4
Communication Behaviours
in an Organization

This chapter includes a detailed analysis of communication behaviours by

the employees of the companies researched in relation to the theory of cor-
porate behaviour, as well as psychological and sociological knowledge about
communication behaviours. Also, a typology of communication behaviours
will be proposed. Other issues discussed here will include the determinants
of employees’ communication and the impact of the growing popularity of
mediated communication on the above-mentioned behaviours. The authors
will point to the areas of strongest concern and the difficulties of commu-
nication by organization members, as well as their preferences for the forms
and the instruments of communication in the workplace.

4.1 The Essence and the Basic Determinants

of Organizational Behaviour
The functioning of a company and its market success are largely depen-
dent on the behaviours of the individuals who make up the organiza-
tion. People with their competences and skills, the relationships between
individual employees, as well as their standards, desires, patterns, and

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 99

A. Rogala, S. Bialowas, Communication in Organizational
Environments, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54703-3_4
100 Communication in Organizational Environments

professed values are soft factors which are often difficult to measure.
They create the climate and culture of an organization and affect both
the motivation and the performance of the personnel (Kożusznik 2007,
p. 11). Thus, knowledge of the issues relating to organizational behav-
iour enables effective management not only of the human resources, but
also of the company as a whole. In order to induce certain attitudes and
behaviours in employees to motivate them to act according to the organi-
zation’s expectations, it is essential to identify the motives which prompt
them to take up work and the stimuli which are likely to improve their
performance. Depending on the adopted theoretical perspective, differ-
ent factors influencing the organizational behaviour of individuals can be
indicated.
Knowledge relating to the behaviour of people in organizations com-
bines the findings of many scientific disciplines belonging to the social
sciences. A person’s behaviour in the workplace is thus analysed on the
basis of concepts developed in the area of psychology (including social
psychology and organizational psychology), sociology, anthropology, as
well as political science and economics. Each of these disciplines helps
to explain various aspects of organizational behaviour. In modern litera-
ture, the term “organizational behaviour” (OB) is typically referred to
as a discipline which investigates the impact of individuals, groups, and
structure on the behaviours exhibited within an organization (Robbins
2001, p. 6). A number of other definitions of this term exist, which differ
in terms of the degree of detail (see: Table 4.1).
The most exhaustive explanations of organizational behaviour are those
proposed by J. Gordon, and by H.L. Tosi, N.P. Mero, and J.R. Rizzo. The
author of the former definition, in addition to the actions and attitudes
of people, also includes the learning process of individuals, groups, and
organizations as a whole in the work environment (Gros 2003, p. 9). On
the other hand, the authors of the latter definition assume that organi-
zational behaviour is a scientific and systematic analysis of individuals,
groups, and organizations in order to understand, predict, and improve
the functioning of both an organization and its members (2001, p. 2).
It should be emphasized that for a full understanding of organizational
behaviour, it is necessary to have knowledge of all the relevant areas,
namely at the level of individuals, groups, and the organization as a whole
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 101

Table 4.1 Definitions of organizational behaviour

Author Definition
J. Champoux The behaviour, attitude, and performance of individuals in
an organization
J. Gordon The actions and attitudes of people in organizations; the
learning process of individuals, groups, and organizations
as a whole in the work environment; as well as the
knowledge and the research area relating to an
organization and its participants
R.W. Griffin, The study of human behaviour in organizational settings;
G. Moorhead as well as the interfaces between the individual, group,
and organizational levels of this behaviour
U. Gros The actions of individuals, groups or teams, as well as an
entire organization. These actions involve various
reactions which occur as a result of repeated or incidental
events, as well as attitude
J. Moczydłowska A system of behaviour and actions related to the
performance of employees’ tasks and the achievement of
an organization’s goals
S.P. Robbins A scientific discipline that studies the impact of individuals,
groups, and the structure of the behaviour exhibited
within an organization
H.L. Tosi A scientific and systematic analysis of individuals, groups,
N.P. Mero and organizations in order to understand, predict, and
J.R. Rizzo improve the functioning of both an organization and its
members
Source: Own compilation (Based on Champoux (2011, p. 6), Gordon (2002),
Griffin and Moorhead (2009, p. 4), Gros (2003, p. 9), Moczydłowska (2006,
p. 30), Robbins (2001, p. 6), Tosi et al. (2001, p. 2))

(Griffin and Moorhead 2009, p. 4). In light of the above definitions, the
present authors assume that organizational behaviour is a scientific disci-
pline which investigates and explains the impact of individuals, groups,
and structure on the behaviours within an organization. They also stipu-
late that an analysis of the different levels of behaviours should include an
analysis of the interfaces between them.
Knowledge related to organizational behaviour helps create an optimal
work environment and adapt the potential of an individual to the require-
ments of companies. Appropriate practical applications of this knowledge
promote the smooth functioning of companies as it helps to reconcile the
needs of the individual with the interests of the organization. Due to the
102 Communication in Organizational Environments

complexity and multifactorial nature of organizational behaviour, under-

standing this issue requires input from many scientific disciplines. Researchers
identify three basic groups of conditions which determine the behaviour of
individuals within an organization: individual, group, and organizational (see:
Gros 2003, p. 12; Hellriegel et al. 1992, p. 29; Kożusznik 2007, pp. 13–16;
Mullins 1993, p.  3; Robbins 2001, p.  19). D.  Hellriegel, J.W.  Slocum,
R.W. Woodman, and U. Gros distinguish an additional group of conditions
connected with introducing changes in the behaviour of individuals, groups,
and organizations. L.J. Mullins, in turn, apart from the main groups, also dis-
tinguishes environmental conditions. In the opinion of the present authors,
considering the focus of this work, it seems the most appropriate to adopt the
three-level model of organizational behaviour proposed by S.P. Robbins: that
is, begin with analysing the determinants of individual behaviour, then move
to group behaviour, and finally to the organizational level (Fig. 4.1).
Individual, group, and organizational determinants represent the inde-
pendent variables in the organizational behaviour model, and the dependent
variables include productivity, absenteeism, turnover, organizational citizen-
ship behaviour, and job satisfaction. Productivity is defined as a measure of
an organization’s effectiveness in achieving its goals as well as the efficiency
of its operations. Absenteeism refers to the number of employees absent
from work on working days. Another variable, turnover, means both volun-
tary and involuntary permanent withdrawal of a member from an organiza-
tion (e.g. termination of the contract by an employee or a dismissal). Next,
organizational citizenship behaviour is defined as discretionary behaviour
that is not part of an employee’s duties but that nevertheless promotes the

Analysis of the organisational behaviour of individuals

Behaviour in the
workplace

Individual Group level Organisational

level determinants level
determinants determinants

Fig. 4.1 Basic organizational behaviour model

(Source: Own compilation based on Robbins (2001, p. 19))
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 103

effective functioning of an organization. Finally, job satisfaction, unlike the

other variables mentioned, is an attitude rather than a behaviour, and refers
to the difference between the praise and rewards that employees receive rela-
tive to what they think they ought to get. The independent variables of the
model will be discussed later in this subsection.
Each group of determinants consists of a number of diverse, but inter-
related and complementary elements. Depending on the level of organi-
zational behaviour analysis, different factors influencing this behaviour
ought to be taken into account. It should also be noted that at all levels
changes may occur which will modify the behaviour of individuals in the
workplace. A grouped and structured list of determinants is presented in
the following diagram (Fig. 4.2).
The impact of the factors listed in the above diagram varies in intensity,
depending on the situations which a person has to deal with as part of
their functioning in a company. A comprehensive analysis of the link-
ages and relationships between the individual components makes it easier
to understand organizational behaviour and its complexity. Moreover, it
becomes possible to develop such types of behaviour that are desirable
from the point of view of an organization.

4.2 Types of Organizational Behaviour

Members of organizations differ from one another, and the behaviours
they exhibit may also be different, despite the influence of the same group
or system factors. The behaviour of individuals affects the functioning
of the organization as a whole, contributing directly or indirectly to
achieving the intended goals, or hindering their attainment. This type
of behaviour is known as workplace behaviour. In the literature one can
find several classifications of organizational behaviour, each adopting a
slightly different perspective for analysis.
R.W.  Griffin and G.  Moorhead distinguish the following types of
behaviours in the work environment (2009, pp. 78–79):

• performance behaviours, that is, those that an organization expects of

its members (good work and efficiency);
104 Communication in Organizational Environments

Individual level

· Personality
· Emotions
· Values
· Attitudes
· Perception and atribution
· Individual decision-making
· Problem solving
· Learning
· Motivation
· Stress

Introduction of changes at the

individual, group and

Organisational behaviour
Group level organisational levels

· Intra-group dynamics
· Iter-group dynamics · Career and development
· Leadership paths
· Communication · Changes in the working
conditions
· Group decision-making
· Changes in organisational
· Conflict and negotiations
structure
· Changes in mission and
goals

Organisation level

· Organisational culture and

climate
· Power
· Organisational structure
· Work design and technology

Fig. 4.2 Determinants of organizational behaviour

(Source: Own compilation (Based on Gros (2003, p. 12), Hellriegel et al. (1992,
p. 30), Robbins (2001, p. 24)))

• withdrawal behaviours, that is, absenteeism and staff turnover;

• dysfunctional behaviours, which detract from organizational performance;
• organizational citizenship behaviours, that is, a sense of connectedness with
an organization which promotes positive contributions to its functioning.
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 105

Individuals who display productive behaviours perform their duties

well and effectively implement the tasks assigned to them, thus enabling
the smooth functioning of the company. Similar effects are produced if
employees have a sense of civic connectedness with an organization. In
contrast, withdrawal from organizational life, taking the form of frequent
absences from work or leaving the organization altogether, makes it dif-
ficult and sometimes even impossible to achieve the goals set. Also, dys-
functional behaviours have a negative impact on a company’s operations,
which will be discussed in more detail later in this section.
Focusing on the same aspects relating to the functioning of an indi-
vidual in an organization, S.L. McShane and M.A. Von Glinow (2008,
pp.  38–41) propose a slightly different classification of organizational
behaviour. These authors specify the following types:

• task performance, that is, goal-oriented behaviours which support the

organizational objectives;
• organizational citizenship, that is, the involvement of employees in the
functioning of the company beyond the scope of their duties;
• counter-productive behaviour, such as exploiting others, avoiding
work obligations, sabotage, and so on;
• joining and staying with the organization;
• maintaining work attendance, that is, avoiding absences.

In this case, productive behaviours take three forms: goal-oriented

behaviours, behaviours associated with joining the company and staying
in it, as well as avoiding absences from the workplace.
In the above classifications, a reference point for the analysis of
employee behaviours is the effective functioning of an organization, for
which dysfunctional behaviours are the biggest threat. Such behaviours
include workaholism, employee theft, workplace bullying, and burnout
(Wachowiak 2011, p. 128). The phenomenon of workaholism is caused
by a range of factors of an organizational nature; such as intense com-
petition, the specific culture of an organization, overwork, or lack of
respect for employees’ time off. Employee thefts take place in companies
where there is, on the one hand, a sense of impunity, and on the other
hand, a sense of organizational injustice. They can also be the result of
106 Communication in Organizational Environments

the demoralizing influence of a supervisor or co-workers. In turn, the

phenomenon of bullying can take place in organizations that are charac-
terized by an inadequate management style and inefficient methods for
resolving conflicts, poor interpersonal relations and unclear role assign-
ment, tolerance of supervisors for such behaviour, as well as a slow flow
of information. Finally, burnout typically affects people who are over-
worked, have excessive responsibilities, or perform repetitive tasks. It can
also be caused by conflicting requirements, poor relationships with col-
leagues, and a lack of feedback on the quality of work and performance.
According to J.  Penc (2011, p.  140), who analyses organizational
behaviour in relation to management practice, there are three possible
attitudes exhibited by employees: cooperation, competition, and neutral-
ity. Cooperation may take a variety of forms, from formal or informal
coalitions, through support, to favouritism. It is based on the assumption
of a community of interests for individuals or groups within a specific
area of operations. In contrast, in the case of competition the interests are
contradictory, and therefore the actions of each of the parties constitute
an obstacle to the other. Competition can be overt or covert, and its forms
include resistance, deceit, exerting pressure, bargaining, or compromise.
Neutrality, in turn, is associated with not being involved in the activities
of other individuals or groups, and refraining from evaluating their ideas.
Neutral behaviour is possible only if the actions of others and the ideas
implemented by them do not affect the important interests of the group.
Cz. Sikorski (2001) proposes examining the organizational behaviour
of individuals against various aspects of corporate functioning, and he
distinguishes the following groups:

• behaviours relative to power relationships, resulting from an emotional

or a rational attitude towards it;
• behaviours relative to functional relationships, which involve conser-
vative or pro-innovative attitudes;
• behaviours relative to cooperation, which manifest themselves in indi-
vidualistic or collectivist thinking about an organization;
• behaviours relative to communication, which involve behaviours in
routine communication (characteristic of traditional organizational
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 107

systems) and spontaneous communication (typical of modern

organizations).

Organizational behaviour patterns relating to the chain of command

are determined not only by an emotional or rational source of power,
but also by the basis of a managers’ authority, the stability and scope of
authority, the selection of information, and the social distance between
supervisors and subordinates. An emotional attitude towards power rela-
tionships is typical of people working in traditional hierarchical orga-
nizations. The exercise of authority in this case is a social process the
objective of which is to maintain or increase the ability to influence indi-
viduals and groups by other groups or individuals, thus shaping their
behaviours. In turn, a rational attitude is typical of people who function
in environments with a strong dominance of horizontal organizational
links. The behaviours displayed by them are primarily intended to lead
to the implementation of specific tasks, but in the course of cooperation
the manager and the subordinates shape each other’s skills and attitudes.
Behaviours related to functional relationships can be either conservative
or pro-innovative. People who exhibit the former attitude do not like
change; they are artisans strongly connected with tradition and expect a
relatively fixed set of information to perform their tasks. They see pro-
fessional experience as the most important component of qualifications,
and specialization as a condition for professional success. In contrast,
employees behaving in a pro-innovative way are artists who are open to
change, treat tradition in an instrumental way, and constantly expand and
modify the information necessary to perform their duties. Specialization
restricts their creative abilities, and professional experience creates and
perpetuates stereotypes, thus hindering innovative activity. Other types
of organizational behaviour are behaviours related to cooperation, which
is associated with a sense of individual or collective identity. People with a
sense of collective identity are of the opinion that their participation in a
group should be exclusive, permanent, and is based on moral reasons. In
contrast, for people with a sense of individual identity being a temporary
member of several groups at the same time is natural and the motives for
their participation are calculative.
108 Communication in Organizational Environments

4.3 Typology of Employees’ Communication

Behaviours
Considering the subject matter of this book, particularly interesting
forms of organizational behaviour are behaviours in relation to commu-
nication. They constitute an important form of organizational behav-
iour since they make it possible to achieve corporate goals and improve
effectiveness at different levels and in different areas of an organization
(Kożusznik 2007, p. 157). The classification by Cz. Sikorski, presented in
the previous subsection, used the following differentiating criteria: type
of perception; similarity of cultural patterns among participants in the
communication process; the presence of feedback; power relationships
between the participants; the method of communicating; and the type
of judgements and assessments which arise out of the communication
process (Table 4.2).
Depending on whether a person participates in routine or spontaneous
communication, the behaviours of employees in the different phases of the
communication process will be fundamentally different. The purpose of
routine communication is to clearly, unambiguously, and succinctly convey
quantitatively limited and carefully selected information. It is characterized
by the following features: selective perception; an assumption of cultural

Table 4.2 Patterns of organizational behaviour in terms of the relationships

between the sender and recipient of information
Routine Spontaneous
Differentiating criteria communication communication
Type of perception Selective Expanded
Similarity of cultural Assumption of Assumption of
patterns among cultural cultural diversity
communication homogeneity
participants
Feedback Rarely expected Regarded as essential
Power relationships Supremacy and Equality
between the participants subordination
Manner of communication Stable and Unstable and
predefined indefinite
Type of judgements and Unambiguous Ambiguous
assessments
Source: Based on Cz. Sikorski (2001, p. 219)
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 109

homogeneity among communication participants; no particular expectation

of feedback; superiority and subordination; a stable and predefined manner
of communication; and unambiguous judgements and assessments. On the
other hand, spontaneous communication rejects stereotypes or treats them
merely as initial cognitive assumptions which are subject to verification, and
assumes that knowledge relating to different aspects of reality should be con-
stantly modified. This type of communication is characterized by the fol-
lowing features: expanded perception; an assumption of cultural diversity;
regarding feedback as an essential part of communication; equal relation-
ships between the participants of the process; an unstable and indefinite
manner of communication, adapted each time to the place and time; and
the ambiguity of judgements and assessments.
Types of communication behaviour are often associated with three
basic styles of communication (see: Bedell and Lennox 1997, pp. 132–
150; McKay et al. 2005, pp. 128–129; Morreale et al. 2007, pp. 357–
358; Nielsen 2008, pp.  64–71; Wood 2010, p.  213). In the course of
communicative situations such as, for example, discussions in a working
group, deciding on the rules of action, or solving problems in the organi-
zation, employees can display the following types of behaviour (Potocki
2001, p. 45):

• submissive (passive)—characterized by a tendency to flee, based on

instinctive reactions occurring as a response to a problem or threat;
• aggressive—manifested in a tendency to fight, also based on instinct;
• assertive—seeking to reach agreement with a partner.

Exhibiting submissive or aggressive behaviour during the communi-

cation process is usually ineffective. An assertive attitude, on the other
hand, leads to achieving the desired objectives through using the skills
of discussion, argumentation, and negotiation. Assertive people com-
municate effectively, do not speak for others but on their own behalf,
know what they want, and at the same time maintain respect for their
interlocutors. Those three types of communication behaviour correspond
to three personality types: submissive, aggressive, and assertive. Each of
them is characterized by a specific manner of speaking, behaviour, feel-
ings, as well as the impression made on others (Table 4.3).
110 Communication in Organizational Environments

People who exhibit assertive communicative behaviour speak clearly,

formulate direct requests, refuse openly, and respect their own rights and the
rights and feelings of others. Moreover, they listen attentively and are will-
ing to negotiate and make concessions, but not at the expense of their rights
and dignity. They accept criticism without resorting to hostile or defensive
attitudes. Their behaviour exudes confidence, strength, and empathy. People
with assertive personalities do not have difficulty with maintaining direct
eye contact, their voice is relaxed but firm, and their posture is upright
and harmonious (McKay et al. 2005, pp. 129). Aggressive communicative
behaviour is characterized by expressing the speaker’s rights and views while
at the same time violating the rights and opinions of others (Morreale et al.
2007, pp. 357–358). Aggressive people tend to humiliate interlocutors by
making sarcastic remarks, and when the situation does not develop accord-
ing to their wishes, they attack. They tend to invoke feelings of guilt, their
statements suggest their superiority and infallibility, and they do not listen
to others. They are characterized by arrogance, a manifestation of power,
indifference, nonchalance, hiding their true feelings behind half-closed eyes,
and an unwavering posture. People who communicate in a passive manner
tend to avoid a direct expression of feelings, wishes, and thoughts put the
interests of others before their own and subordinate their individual needs
to the needs of others (ibid.). Those of the submissive type listen dispropor-
tionately more to other parties, diminish the significance of their own state-
ments, and are unable to openly refuse. Individuals who manifest passive
communicative behaviour expect that others will guess what they wanted
to say. Their voice is silent and shaky; their utterances tend to be confused,
hesitant, and choppy, and their posture slouchy. Moreover, it is difficult to
make eye contact with them. The most effective communicators are the
assertive ones because they can strive to achieve their goals without antago-
nizing others. Assertiveness can be learnt, as can be assertive communicative
behaviour. Also, it is worth noting that depending on the circumstances,
one person can exhibit the characteristics of submissive, aggressive, or asser-
tive personalities, although in most cases each person’s communication will
bear the hallmarks of one communication style.
The attitudes people exhibit in the communication process exert an
influence on the relationships within an organization, producing certain
consequences (Table 4.4). Assertive behaviour is usually beneficial, whereas
aggressive or passive behaviours can be effective only in the short term.
Table 4.3 Types of communicational personalities
Type
Submissive/passive Aggressive Assertive
Manner of Rarely speaks; often says: “yes” Speaks a lot; often uses Asks questions; uses
speaking or “would you be so kind…?” such phrases as “you such phrases as “I
had better…,” “if think…,” “I feel…,”
not…,” “be careful…,” “how can we…,”
4

“always,” “never” “what do you think?”

Apologetic words; excuses; Ambiguous and imperious Sentences expressing
hidden meanings; prevaricating; words; tricky questions; needs; sincere
talking off-topic; chaotic ideas; apportioning blame; expression of feelings;
desperate search for words; subjective descriptive direct sentences;
inability to express what one notions; firm statements objective words;
really feels and thinks expressing superiority; statements with “I”
accusatory or labelling
statements with “you”
Behaviour Restless; lowered head; avoids Seeks attention and Shows interest;
eye contact; “shrinks before the applause; interrupts; maintains eye
eyes”; clumsy movements interjects; puts on airs; contact; shows
points the finger; glares; respect
shows anger
Feelings Afraid to express feelings; feels Feels anger and hatred Expresses feelings
guilty; defensive about their towards other people
behaviour
Impression made Actions instead of words in the Excessive show of power; Listens attentively;
on recipients hope that someone will flippant style; full of expresses concern and
Communication Behaviours in an Organization

understand what is meant sarcasm; self-importance interest; shows inner

strength;
self-confidence
Source: Own compilation (Based on Kostecka (1997, p. 205), McKay et al. (2005, pp. 128–129), Potocki et al. (2003,
111

pp. 82–83))
112 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 4.4 The consequences of assertive, aggressive, and passive behaviour

Behaviour
Consequences Assertive Aggressive Passive
Connected Others are happy Others are angry Others are happy
with social that their needs that their needs that their needs
relations are respected are not are respected
Others treat me considered Others do not
with respect Others are afraid respect me
Others are of me; Others do not
encouraged to Others are believe that I am
treat me in the encouraged to sincere
same way as I treat me in the Others treat me
treat them same way as I like a pushover
Others seek my treat them
company Others avoid my
company
Connected Positive attitude Negative attitude Avoidance;
with attitude instances of
negative attitude
Source: Own compilation based on Bedell and Lennox (1997, p. 144)

People who communicate in an aggressive manner face social isolation.

Colleagues are afraid of them, do not trust them, and avoid contact with
them. On the other hand, assertive individuals are accepted, liked, and
respected, and they help to form positive, mutually beneficial relation-
ships between people. People who communicate in a passive way do not
inspire confidence because avoiding contact, combined with an exces-
sive tendency to forgo their needs to satisfy the interests of others, raises
doubts about the sincerity of their intentions. As a result, they are treated
instrumentally and not respected.
The distinction made by Cz. Sikorski (2001), concerning behaviour in
routine and spontaneous communication, is the starting point for propos-
ing a typology of communication behaviours by employees developed by
Rogala (2013). It should be noted that, in her opinion, in both traditional
and modern organizations, both types of communication take place. Thus,
routine communication is not typical of traditional organizations only; and
spontaneous communication is not exclusive for those which operate on
the basis of modern principles; however, depending on the organizational
system adopted, one of the types of communication will be dominant.
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 113

Routine communication involves the transmission of clear and

unambiguous information without receiving feedback. Therefore, in the
light of the theory of communication, it can be equated with informa-
tion (i.e. a one-sided flow of information) rather than communication.
Because the relationship between the parties involved in routine com-
munication is based on superiority and subordination, and the manner
of communicating is fixed and predefined, it can be said that it is the
transmission of information through formal channels in an organization.
On the other hand, spontaneous communication involves obtaining
feedback, adjusted to specific communication needs as well as assuming
the existence of ambiguous and diverse judgements and assessments. Due
to the fact that the relationship between the participants in the process is
equal, and the flow of information is not pre-determined (so it is charac-
terized by relative instability), spontaneous communication usually tends
to be informal rather than formal.
Considering that in any organization both routine and spontaneous
communication occurs, the communicative behaviours of employees will
take different forms. The kinds of communication behaviour will also
vary depending on the orientation of individuals within their organiza-
tional behaviour. Rogala assumes that a person’s behaviour in the work-
place can be oriented towards relationships, tasks, or survival. In the first
place, for an individual oriented towards tasks and their implementa-
tion, the overriding purpose of their functioning in an organization is
the achievement of organizational objectives. Secondly, the priority for
an employee oriented towards relationships is to build and foster positive
relationships within the organization. Such actions will translate into a
positive atmosphere in the company and the effective implementation of
assigned tasks. The third type, the so-called orientation towards survival,
is typical for people who treat work as a place where they earn their liveli-
hood but with which they do not identify, so they avoid both accepting
new tasks and interacting with others. They perform their duties prop-
erly, but they do not reveal a need for professional development, which
does not mean that they do not have any. They are also unwilling to share
their opinions with colleagues.
Based on an analysis of various typologies of organizational behav-
iour and the assumption adopted for the occurrence of both routine and
114 Communication in Organizational Environments

spontaneous communication in organizations, as well as the existence

of three employee orientations within organizational behaviour, a typol-
ogy of communicative behaviours for people in an organization has been
developed, which is presented in Table 4.5.
Within routine communication, which is connected with formal chan-
nels and the transmission of necessary information for the performance
of duties, three kinds of behaviour can be distinguished: cooperation,
competition, and neutrality. Each is characterized by a different approach
to the goals of communication, different actions in the communicative
process, and a different style of communication. Depending on the
behaviours which people display, they may remain neutral, impede or
facilitate the process of implementing the so-called informational objec-
tives of organizational communication, which are connected with rou-
tine communication. For this reason, it is vital that the management
should be aware of the attitude of individual employees to communi-
cating in the workplace. Spontaneous communication, usually consid-
ered synonymous with an informal flow of information, is initiated by
members of the organization. The behaviours exhibited in relation to
this kind of communication can be assertive, aggressive, or passive. In
the case of assertive behaviour, individuals seek to reach agreement and
to form a good relationship with the recipient, and their communication
style is characterized by clarity and appropriateness, as well as showing an
interest in the interlocutor. Aggressive behaviour, in turn, is manifested
in a tendency to fight in the communicative environment. This manner
of communication is characterized by excessive directness, expressive-
ness, firmness, feeling of superiority, and lack of respect for a partner. In
contrast, passive behaviour involves avoiding eye contact, experiencing a
sense of danger, as well as being afraid to openly and clearly express one’s
own opinions. People who adopt a passive attitude in communication do
not initiate the communication process and rarely formulate the message
in a clear and comprehensible way.
These types of behaviour influence the process of communication in
an organization and its functioning differently. Cooperation and assertive
communicative behaviour are productive behaviours, which give rise to
positive outcomes, such as a good job or increased performance. They also
help to create bonds between the employees and the organization, which
Table 4.5 Typology of communicative behaviours for individuals in organizations
Behaviours relative to routine Behaviours relative to spontaneous
Type of orientation communication communication
Relationships: Cooperation: Assertive:
An employee is a social being; A community of interests of Striving to achieve
Work is a place where positive individuals or groups understanding with a partner
4

interpersonal relationships are built Formal and informal coalitions, Assertive style—honest
and fostered support, favouritism expression of opinions and
The important role of a positive Moderately complex, direct, feelings; directness;
atmosphere in the workplace, relatively expressive style; the appropriateness; showing
which helps in the performance of sender formulates messages in a interest; maintaining eye contact;
tasks way appropriate to a situation, confidence; empathy
Communication is a tool for maintaining respect for the
forming relationships and creating recipient
a work climate conducive to
effective task performance
Tasks: Competition: Aggressive:
An employee is an individual being; Contradictory objectives of Tendency to fight
Work enables the realization of individuals Aggressive style—ambiguous and
one’s own ambitions Overt or covert forms of rivalry imperious words; accusatory tone;
An important role of (resistance, deceit, exerting extreme directness and firmness;
organizational hierarchy pressure, bargaining, compromise) self-importance; expressiveness;
Communication is a tool for Concrete, direct, specific, excessive manifestation of power
implementing tasks and achieving expressive style; the sender clearly
organizational objectives, which formulates their expectations
Communication Behaviours in an Organization

ought to translate into achieving towards the recipient and openly

personal objectives expresses their feelings and
attitudes
(continued)
115
Table 4.5 (continued)
116

Behaviours relative to routine Behaviours relative to spontaneous

Type of orientation communication communication
Survival: Neutrality: Passive:
An employee is a loner and a cog Lack of involvement in the Tendency to flee as a response to
in the organizational machinery; activities of other individuals or a problem or a threat
Work is a place where one can earn groups; refraining from passing Submissive style—apologetic
a living judgement tone; prevarication; avoiding eye
Communication is a tool for Complex, indirect and largely contact; fear of expressing one’s
forming relationships and creating reserved (emotions and attitudes own opinions and feelings
a work climate conducive to are not reflected either in the
effective task performance content or the form of the
message)
Source: Rogala’s own compilation
Communication in Organizational Environments
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 117

is referred to as organizational citizenship. Competition and aggressive

behaviours should not be associated exclusively with negative effects,
because if adequately controlled they can help in achieving organizational
objectives. However, such behaviours can also be dysfunctional and have
a negative impact on the efficiency of an organization. Neutrality and a
passive attitude in communication makes it difficult to perform tasks,
does not promote building relationships, and in extreme cases leads to
withdrawal from the life of a company, absenteeism, and even changing
jobs. From the perspective of organizational communication, coopera-
tion and assertive behaviour seem to be the most advantageous. It must
be noted, however, that healthy competition can also benefit a company.
Considering the different consequences that particular communica-
tion behaviours by individuals can produce, any study of organizational
communication and its effectiveness should also include recognizing
these behaviours. One of the methods used as part of a communication
audit in order to evaluate the effectiveness of organizational communica-
tion is social network analysis. This analysis makes it possible to identify,
among others, the initiators of communication, information leaders or
intermediaries, as well as the so-called peripheral people in a company.
The roles that employees perform are connected not only with access to
current information, but also with the most frequently exhibited com-
munication behaviours of individual employees. In addition, being able
to identify the type of communication behaviour of a person applying
for a job—aggressive, assertive, or passive—makes it possible to assign
an appropriate role for them to play in the information flow processes
within an organization. This, in turn, helps to tune internal communica-
tion to its greatest efficiency.
The smooth functioning of a company requires an atmosphere which
is conducive to the implementation of the tasks assigned to the staff, and
this is to a large extent determined by routine and spontaneous com-
munication between employees. Thus, the communication behaviours
of individual members of an organization determine their effectiveness,
facilitating or hindering the achievement of organizational objectives.
For this reason, it is crucial to treat the communication processes within
companies and the attitudes displayed within communication as impor-
tant areas of management.
118 Communication in Organizational Environments

4.4 Determinants of Individual

Communication Behaviours
in an Organization1
Communication behaviours are determined by a similar set of factors
as organizational behaviour, a full list of which is presented in Sect. 4.1.
Thus, it should be analysed on three interrelated levels: interpersonal,
group, and organizational. The authors will confine themselves to dis-
cussing the most important determinants of communication behaviours,
selected on the basis of analysing literature sources from the fields of
psychology, sociology, and management.
B. Sobkowiak divides all determinants of communication behaviours
into biological, socio-professional, and psychological factors (2005,
p. 127). The first group includes gender, age, health, and appearance.
Research conducted by psychologists, sociologists, and linguists clearly
shows that there are differences in communication between men and
women. According to Z. Nęcki, there are several reasons for this. First of
all, the representatives of each gender have different non-linguistic expe-
riences; also, they perform different tasks and social functions (Nęcki
2000, p.  219). The process of socialization is regulated by a number
of stereotypes about what is “masculine” and what is “feminine.” Girls
are taught to display affection, sensitivity, and docility; while boys are
expected to be resourceful, unemotional, and self-reliant. As a result,
women tend to display submissive communication behaviours while
men tend to strive for domination. Utterances by representatives of the
fairer sex are longer, often begin with adverbs, and frequently contain
oppositions, rhetorical questions, interludes, and references to emo-
tional states. In contrast, males frequently use the pronoun “I,” longer
words, present tenses, evaluating adjectives, references to people, as well
as vocalized pauses. Men also tend to make more grammatical errors

1
Subsection based on the following conference paper: Rogala A., Białowąs S., The influence of per-
sonality features and group and organizational conditionings on the effectiveness of internal communica-
tion—hierarchy and  its determinants, in: 13th International Conference Marketing Trends
Proceedings, Jean-Claude Andreani and  Umberto Collesei (eds.), ESCP-AEP European School
of Management, Venice 2014, pp. 1–11.
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 119

(ibid., p. 226). According to the stereotype, women are associated with

warmth, empathy, expressiveness, emotionality, and lower confidence
in communication. Men, in contrast, are characterized by rationality,
the desire to control the course of conversation, as well as the previ-
ously mentioned tendency to dominate (Wood 2009, p. 372). Despite
these gender differences in communication behaviours, it should be
noted that sometimes women communicate in a “masculine” way. This
is because people can adjust their style of communication to the specific
context and opt for a more “masculine” or “feminine” version, depend-
ing on the situation. The effect of age on communication behaviours
can be considered in terms of both biological and psychological age.
Older people are characterized by greater prudence in the choice of
words, distance, and rationality. Young people are more open, sponta-
neous, and impulsive, as well as being more extreme in their perception
of reality. Importantly, such behaviours in terms of communication are
widely expected from representatives of the older and younger gen-
erations (Rosengren 2006, p. 72). Another biological factor is health,
which can have a positive impact on the communication process or,
in the case of indisposition or illness, hinder it or even prevent it alto-
gether. Finally, physical appearance consistent with the standards of
beauty in a given culture is associated with certain positive traits, mak-
ing it easier for an attractive person to achieve their communication
objectives, the opposite being the case for an unattractive person. All
these factors can significantly affect people’s communication skills and
the effectiveness of the communication process.
The most significant among the socio-professional factors are family
situation, education, and profession. The impact of the first of them on
the course of communication has not been a subject of detailed research
so far. However, it can be assumed that family situation affects feelings
of confidence or uncertainty in interpersonal relations, which may make
communication easier or more difficult. Education and profession, in
turn, shape expectations connected with the methods of communication.
People with higher education are expected to have better communica-
tion skills and more extroversion, in the same way as representatives of
certain professions (e.g. lawyers) and professional groups (e.g. managers)
(Sobkowiak 2005, p. 130).
120 Communication in Organizational Environments

The last group of individual determinants for communication

behaviours comprises psychological factors. These include such things as
capabilities (including competence and experience), intelligence, person-
ality, needs, motivation, and values. According to the PWN Encyklopedia,
intelligence is “a quality of the mind determining the efficiency of cog-
nitive functions such as thinking or problem-solving” (online version,
http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo.php?id=3915042). Currently, four
modules of intelligence are distinguished: abstract, practical, social, and
emotional. From the perspective of communication the most important
are the following: abstract intelligence, which is the ability to use verbal
and symbolic material; social intelligence, which enables an understanding
of social situations and facilitates communicating with people; and emo-
tional intelligence, based on self-awareness and self-control. According to
D. Goleman, emotional intelligence consists of an awareness of one’s own
emotions, managing emotions, the ability to motivate oneself, empathy,
as well as establishing and maintaining relationships with other people (as
cited in Daly 2002, p. 145). High emotional intelligence levels in inter-
locutors will favourably affect the process of communication. Next, needs,
being the states of deprivation felt by individuals, can be a motivating or
demotivating factor in making an effort in the context of organizational
communication. Another factor is values, that is, clear preferences relating
to the directions of actions and their results, which comprise all that is
valuable and desirable from the point of view of an individual (existential,
cognitive, aesthetic), and that is the purpose of their endeavours. They
determine what in the opinion of a particular person is right and wrong,
and what actions they consider acceptable or unacceptable. The values
recognized by people are the basis for shaping norms, attitudes, behaviour
patterns, and evaluating behaviour (French et  al. 2011, pp.  108–110).
Importantly, values are formed both as a result of personal experiences and
the learning process. It should be noted, however, that personal values are
characterized by relative stability and once rooted, are difficult to change.
The psychological factors that play a particularly significant role
in communication are personality, motivation, and communica-
tion competences. Referring to the typology of human personality by
C.G.  Jung, based on the categories of sensitiveness and impulsiveness,
one can distinguish between introverts and extroverts. Introverts have
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 121

problems with expressing feelings, formulating opinions in a clear way,

establishing relationships, and show reluctance towards interpersonal
relations. Extroverts, on the other hand, are fond of contact with people,
are talkative, sociable, expressive, and reveal their emotions willingly. Not
only genes but also an individual’s experiences, which are the results of
interaction with the environment, exert an influence on personality crys-
tallization and development. According to the typology of Hippocrates-
Galen, there are four temperament types: choleric, sanguine, melancholic,
and phlegmatic. The first type is impulsive and sensitive, and the second
impulsive and insensitive. The melancholic temperament is characterized
by high sensitivity and low impulsiveness, and the phlegmatic type exhibits
a low intensity of both these traits. Cholerics and sanguinics are extroverted,
and therefore are able to communicate effectively. They also have the ability
to create an appropriate environment for building relationships with others.
In contrast, melancholics and phlegmatics are introverts, rarely initiating
communication and feeling anxious about contacts with others. They are
reluctant to share their opinions, feelings, or knowledge, and they choose
their words carefully (Sobkowiak 2005, pp. 134–135).
Another factor—motivation—is a trigger for human activity. Taking
into account the functioning of an individual in the workplace, motiva-
tion is the readiness to make an effort in order to achieve the goals of an
organization. The strength of such motivation depends on the degree to
which people’s efforts makes satisfying their needs easier. Therefore, moti-
vation is every internal and external factor which initiates and strength-
ens human behaviour. The extent to which an individual is influenced
depends on the value and the attractiveness of the goal, and on the sub-
jective evaluation regarding the possibility of its achievement (Hellriegel
et  al. 2007, p.  121). A starting point for the process of motivation is
when an individual realizes the existence of an unfulfilled need, which
creates a state of tension, which in turn produces certain aspirations. They
stimulate a person to strive for such goals which will satisfy a need, and
thus ease the tension. Depending on the adopted theory of motivation,2

2
There are many theories explaining human motivation to act, but management science usually
refers to the following: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; McGregor’s X and Y theories; Herzberg’s two-
factor theory; Alderfer’s ERG theory; McClelland’s three needs theory; the goal-setting theory,
122 Communication in Organizational Environments

a number of factors are indicated which affect the willingness of an

employee to take specific actions as well as the intensity of this willing-
ness. These include different kinds of needs, motives, desires, goals, and
incentives. Issues relating to motivation are an area of particular interest
to organizations, as employee productivity depends both on their skills
and the availability of the resources necessary to fulfil their duties, as well
as the motivation to do the work. Also, the motivation for communicat-
ing with other people rises with an increased motivation to act.
The basis for effective communication is the communication com-
petence3 of the interlocutors. Scientists from different linguistic disci-
plines define it variously, although there are some common attributes.
Traditionally (Olson 2002, p.  173), it was identified with the abilities
and personal skills to achieve the goals of interaction. Currently, a subjec-
tive evaluation regarding the quality of a person’s abilities is taken into
consideration (Spitzberg and Cupach 1984; Spitzberg et  al. 1994), as
well as an acknowledgement of the contextual character of every human
interaction (Spitzberg et  al. 1994). A behaviour which is perceived as
competent in one situation may be incompetent in another one.
In linguistics the following elements of communicative competence
(CC) are recognized: linguistic competence, pragmalinguistic compe-
tence, interactive competence, and sociolinguistic competence. D. Crystal
(1991, p. 66) states that CC “focuses on native-speakers’ ability to pro-
duce and understand sentences which are appropriate to the context in
which they occur—what speakers need to know in order to communicate
effectively in socially distinct settings.” Its vital determinants are the rela-
tionship between sender and receiver, and the time and place of speak-
ing. Therefore, adjusting a statement to a situation, and the relationships
between communication effectiveness and communication competence,
are both important. According to I.  Kurcz (2000, p.  130), CC is the
ability to use language appropriate to a situation. On the other hand,
S.P. Morreale et al. (2007, p. 75) note that CC depends on motivation,
knowledge, and skills, as well as on the context of communication and

reinforcement theory; expectancy theory; and equity theory. Due to the fact that they are not the
focus of this work, they will not be discussed in detail at this point.
3
The terms: “communication competence,” “communication competency,” and “communicative
competence” are all used in the literature.
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 123

the perception processes. Gudynkust (2002) is of the opinion that CC is

a minimization of misunderstandings, and as such it involves “accurately
predicting and explaining our own and other’s behaviour within the con-
text of the communication that is occurring” (Roy 2001, p. 325). A dif-
ferent concept of CC has been proposed by S. Frydrychowicz, according
to whom it consists of “knowledge about the communication process
(conscious and unconscious) and the ability to use it, adapted to the
requirements of a communication situation, including the interlocutor
and their social roles, and executed in a manner appropriate for the situ-
ation” (2009, p. 98). The author also points out that CC is determined
by socio-cultural and genetic factors (e.g. the ability of decentration).
The attributes of properly developed CC are openness; the ability to
choose precise and appropriate words, signs, metaphors, and symbols
in relation to the transferred content; honesty; tact; culture; and empa-
thy (Oleksyn 2006, pp. 81–82). Other important attributes also include
attentive listening, receiving and giving feedback, attentive perception,
as well as verbal and non-verbal communication skills (Frydrychowicz
2009, pp. 100–102).
CC has three fundamental objectives: lucidity, appropriateness, and
effectiveness (ibid., p. 93). Lucidity refers to the clarity of information.
Appropriateness concerns the proper and suitable behaviour in a specific
situation and in a particular group, and is frequently equated to tact or
politeness. Therefore, an interactant should use the messages expected in a
given context and demonstrate acceptable behaviour. Effectiveness relates
to judgements about the ability of the interlocutors in an exchange to
achieve their objectives (Roy 2001, p. 325). People can do so if they are
able to control and manipulate their social environment in order to obtain
a desired outcome. The most important aspects that should be consid-
ered are appropriateness and effectiveness, because their fine combination
entails an optimal interaction and enables an evaluation of the interac-
tants’ competence (Olson 2002, p. 173). There are four ways in which
effectiveness and appropriateness can be combined (see Table  4.6). They
represent different combinations of communication (in)competence.
“Optimizing” reflects the highest form of CC which enables achieving
the objectives while taking into consideration the context, social norms,
and interlocutors’ feelings. Thus a competent communicator adapts their
124 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 4.6 Possible combinations of communication (in)competence

Description Example
Optimizing Achieving desired personal Constructive problem
(appropriate goals in a way that solving
and efficient) sustains relationships and
respects situational rules.
Personal satisfaction is
vital but not at the
expense of an interlocutor
Sufficing A person adjusts to the New sales representative
(appropriate communication context, having problems with
and inefficient) but does not achieve active participation in
goals because is a passive a sales meeting
participant in interaction
Maximizing Maximum obtained when Sales manager sets sales
(inappropriate one of the interactants is objectives for the sales
and efficient) excessively assertive or representatives in an
aggressive and does not aggressive and
care about authoritarian manner
appropriateness or the
feelings of others
Minimizing A person fails to achieve Discouragement in
(inappropriate goals, violates rules and respect of the
and inefficient) frequently disaffects company’s offer caused
others with disrespectful by inappropriate sales
behaviour in respect of representative
communication context behaviour during
and interlocutors. Low contact with the client
communicative quality
Source: Own elaboration (Based on: Frydrychowicz (2009), Gudykunst and Mody
(2002), Spitzberg (2000), Spitzberg et al. (1994))

behaviour to the context and the situation, manages conflicts in a con-

structive way, remains sensitive to the needs of the interactants, and is
able to achieve personal goals (ibid., p.  173). According to Spitzberg
(1994, 2000), the most important challenge for CC is to keep a balance
between the necessity to be appropriate and the desire to be effective. CC
is therefore contextual, evaluated in terms of appropriateness and effec-
tiveness, and exists for a reason.
Biological, socio-professional, and psychological factors are extremely
important for the analysis and proper understanding of the communica-
tive behaviour of individuals in the workplace. In addition, being aware
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 125

of these factors helps activities within the communication process to be

adjusted to the needs, expectations, and characteristics of employees. It
also promotes proper management of internal communication and, as a
consequence, enables effective management of people in organizations.
At the group level, people’s communicative behaviours in an organiza-
tion are shaped by the style of management introduced by the supervisors,
the kind and character of the communication network which connects
all the individuals in a group, relations between employees within and
between departments, as well as conflicts. The way in which the manager
addresses subordinates determines communication in any given team.
R. Lippit and R.K. White4 enumerate the following styles in their classi-
cal division of management styles: autocratic, democratic, and passive. In
every case communication has different features (Gach and Pietruszka-
Ortyl 2005, pp.  217–219; Penc 2011, pp.  238–239). A manager who
prefers an autocratic style maintains a distance from employees which
increases the number of barriers to communication. Communication
is maximally limited, and the flow of information is mainly unidirec-
tional, firm, and formalized. Autocratic managers prefer informative
communication and they usually initiate it themselves. Moreover, they
often highlight their superiority in their relations with employees. On
the other hand, managers with a democratic style aim at eliminating all
the obstacles in communication. A group directed in a democratic way
is characterized by a two-way, symmetrical process of communication; in
addition, the manager uses communication to inspire creativity and ini-
tiative among subordinates. People contact each other willingly and the
working atmosphere fosters open communication, a mutual exchange
of ideas, and the growth of staff creativity. In contrast, in a passive
(laissez-faire) style the flow of information relating to work is occasional,
formalized, and forced by employees. The boss rarely initiates commu-
nication connected to working with subordinates; however, he or she is
eager to communicate with them on a social level. In practice, according

4
In the literature relating to management science there are many different classifications of leader-
ship styles. However, because management styles are not the main focus of this book, the authors
decided to adopt the classical division of management styles.
126 Communication in Organizational Environments

to the situational approach, managers usually combine different styles of

management, using various options in specific situations.
The second factor within the determinants for group communicative
behaviours is the kind and character of the communication network link-
ing the individuals in a group. There are two communication channels
in every organization: structured (formal) and unstructured (informal),
within which a few kinds of networks can be enumerated. A communica-
tion network is a model formed by the flow of announcements transferred
between group members (Potocki et al. 2003, p. 48). Formal communi-
cation networks are usually built and introduced by direct supervisors.
They result from the style of management, the organizational habits,
regulations, character, and tasks of a group. Communication through
a structured channel takes place through working meetings, document
exchange, and management conferences. They are usually character-
ized by being widely known and not generally susceptible to changes.
Informal networks, in contrast, are based on personal and emotional rela-
tions between people, taking their characteristics, attitudes, and aims into
account (Szymańska 2004, p. 30). They have their source in casual con-
versations among the personnel, gossip, and rumours. They are derivative
of the attractiveness of the participants in the communication process
and their access to important or interesting information. Unstructured
communication is usually not public knowledge, flexible, and susceptible
to changes. In organizational communication the following types of net-
works can be identified: “wheel,” “chain,” “Y,” “circle,” “hub,” “star,” and
“pyramid.” They differ in terms of the information flow, the position of
the leader, and the effectiveness of the task performance. For example,
in the wheel network the process of communication is controlled by the
person holding the central position, probably the leader of the group.
One person has, therefore, a kind of monopoly on information. In con-
trast, the chain model ensures a more even flow of information between
the group members, but the people who are at both ends of the chain
are in contact with only one person. The Y network is a modification
of the chain, where one employee has a privileged position. In the circle
network, communication occurs only between two adjacent members,
and all the members are treated equally. Similarly, in the star network all
the employees have the same position, but each can communicate with
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 127

all the group members. The pyramid network is a variation of the star
except that one person occupies a central position. Finally, the hub com-
munication network combines the features of the circle and pyramid net-
works—every employee has direct contact with two adjacent members of
the group, and can contact other group members through the person who
has a privileged position. At this point one should also mention informal
communication networks known as the grapevine. The grapevine con-
sists of several overlapping information networks with several points of
intersection. These points are well-informed employees who belong to
more than one network. Grapevine communication typically takes the
form of single thread networks, gossip wheel networks, probability net-
works, or cluster networks (Potocki 2001, pp. 36–37). The least accurate
is the single thread network because there is a high risk of information
being distorted. In the gossip wheel, in turn, the person in the centre of
the wheel contacts other employees of their own accord and provides
interesting information. In the probability network, messages are trans-
mitted randomly to accidental recipients. The cluster network is the most
common in corporate practice. In this case the sender carefully selects
several recipients, called connectors. The choice of a particular kind of
network results in both positive and negative consequences for the effec-
tiveness of an organization’s activities. For this reason, the introduction
of new solutions should always be preceded by an analysis involving a
number of factors. These should include the current and future operating
conditions of the group; the requirements facing the group; the charac-
teristics, qualifications, and experience of the group members; and the
predisposition of the manager (Sobkowiak 2005, p. 156). Importantly,
the proposed networks should take into account the expectations and real
needs of the organization’s members.
The literature regarding human behaviours in the workplace men-
tions the dynamics of activities, both between the members of a group
and between different groups, as being among the determinants of
group behaviours. Group dynamics is described as the dynamics of
social interaction within those groups, while there is also an interaction
between certain group members and the group as the whole. Taking into
account the fact that the interests of the participants and their groups
can be inconsistent, different negative occurrences which influence the
128 Communication in Organizational Environments

effectiveness of the group as a whole may take place. D. Hellriegel et al.

(1992, pp. 312–313) enumerate the so-called free-rider effect, the sucker
effect, and social laziness. The first one refers to a situation where a mem-
ber of a group derives benefits from participation in it, but does not make
a proportional contribution to generating those benefits. On the other
hand, the sucker effect occurs as a consequence of the free-rider effect and
manifests itself in some individuals refraining from efforts to achieve the
objectives of the group. This happens because they feel that other group
members will participate in the sharing of benefits without contributing
to their creation. Group cooperation is also connected with the phenom-
enon of social laziness, which denotes the tendency of group members
to put less effort in teamwork than in individual work (Robbins 2004,
p. 178). The relationships created between the groups are crucial both
from the perspective of the functioning of an individual in the workplace
and in an organization as a whole, as they may significantly affect the
performance of a company.
An integral part of the activities of any organization, also in the area
of communication, are conflicts. A conflict is defined as a discord arising
from irreconcilable differences of opinions or interests, or tension occur-
ring between two or more parties, leading to disturbance or opposition
(see: Hellriegel et  al. 2007, p.  294; Martin and Fellenz 2010, p.  300;
Robbins and DeCenzo 2002, p. 536; Tosi et al. 2001, p. 276). According
to the approaches to conflict which can be found in the literature (tradi-
tional, interactional, the school of interpersonal relationships), it can have
both negative and positive effects (Robbins 2004, pp. 309–310). The for-
mer include lowering employee productivity, delays in communication,
or hindering the implementation of organizational goals (dysfunctional
conflict). Positive consequences from conflict may include increasing
staff involvement in the functioning of the department, stimulating cre-
ativity and innovation, or promoting the implementation of solutions
supporting the development of the company.
Communication behaviours are also determined by organizational fac-
tors. They include the direction of communication (vertical [up or down],
horizontal, diagonal), the kind of organizational structure, and the features
of organizational culture. Vertical communication is usually formalized,
forced, and asymmetrical. Both supervisors and subordinates can control
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 129

and select the information transferred. Horizontal communication, on the

other hand, which takes place among people with similar or the same
organizational status, is spontaneous, symmetrical, and weakly formal-
ized, and people share information openly. Diagonal communication is
rarely used, most often because the flow of information through vertical
and horizontal channels is insufficient.
The communication process in a company is determined by the orga-
nizational structure as well.5 The organizational structure is the formal
arrangement of the following interrelated elements: work specialization,
chain of command, span of control, formalization, centralization and
decentralization, as well as departmentalization (Robbins 2004, pp. 336–
337). Its purpose is to divide work among the members of an organi-
zation and coordinate their activities in such a way as to orient them
towards achieving the company’s objectives. The organizational structure
defines tasks and responsibilities, roles and lines of authority, as well as
communication channels. Downward communication predominates in
line structures. Communication is formalized and the route of the flow
of information is relatively long, so there is a danger the message is dis-
torted or the process is interrupted. In functional structures there are
shorter and more direct communication routes between managers and
employees, but the communication network is more complicated and
subordinates may receive contradictory messages. This leads to problems
with the information flow over the whole organization. In contrast, staff
and line organizational structures are characterized by a theoretical com-
munication order (staff managers do not communicate directly with the
subordinates of line managers); however, the paths for the flow of infor-
mation and its processing are relatively long (Kraśniak 2008, pp. 55–58).
In all traditional one-dimensional structures the communicative rela-
tionships are rigid and formalized. Vertical communication is based on
commonly known rules, as well as being simple and predictable. However,
it is also necessary to highlight some differences. Communication pro-
cesses in a one-dimensional functional structure are segmented. Due to
their specificity, each division creates its own communication system,

5
The authors have limited this analysis of communication and only selected the most popular types
of organizational structures.
130 Communication in Organizational Environments

which has its own specialist language, or lingo. In order to make decisions
at the executive management level it is necessary to obtain information
from each of the divisions. Unfortunately, the information sent in the
course of upward communication is often distorted. In contrast, in prod-
uct-based structures it is the sectoral segments that have autonomous
communication systems, which are determined by the specificity of the
product involved. Regional structures, on the other hand, develop sepa-
rate communication systems which take into account the customs and
cultural norms specific to a given region. Internal communication in tra-
ditional one-dimensional structures usually takes a written form. As orga-
nizational units become increasingly specialized and autonomous, it is
important to coordinate all the activities through corporate communica-
tion. A tendency can also be observed of replacing interpersonal commu-
nication with written communication (Sobkowiak 2005, pp. 171–176).
Multidimensional structures are characterized by a spontaneous and often
informal flow of information. For instance, in the matrix structure direct
two-way communication predominates, and creating decentralized com-
munication networks means that communication is fast and efficient.
Taking into consideration the span of control and the number of man-
agement levels, tall and flat structures can be distinguished. In tall struc-
tures the communication lines between task performers and top level
managers are fairly long due to the large number of hierarchical levels
(Świetlik 2004, pp. 210–211). This leads to delays in the transmission of
information and increases the probability of information being distorted
or no longer current. Nevertheless, because of the necessity of making
arrangements between different organizational units, even in tall struc-
tures there is a natural desire to create efficient communication systems.
In case of a flat structure, the path of communication and the time to
transfer information are shortened, which contributes to the transmitted
information being current and precise.
Taking into account flexibility towards change and the nature of the
mechanisms regulating the behaviour of individuals in the workplace,
mechanistic and organic organizations are distinguished. In the former,
communication takes place through highly formalized channels, and its
purpose is primarily to issue instructions. In contrast, organic structures
are oriented towards people and characterized by high flexibility and a
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 131

liquidity of roles, as well as a low degree of formalization. Communication

is therefore multidirectional and multi-channel and has a casual and
informal nature. Its purpose is to provide information and advice.
Organizational culture, which has a significant impact on individu-
als’ behaviour and ways of thinking, has an important position among
the determinants of communication behaviours. It is defined as “a set
of conscious and unconscious values, beliefs and patterns of behaviour
which form the identity of an organization and are a basis for assigning
meanings as well as the identification of employees with the company”
(as cited in Olsztyńska 2005, p.  64). One of the essential elements of
organizational culture is the atmosphere of the organization understood
as the quality of communication processes between individuals. The
aforementioned atmosphere is influenced by a sense of respect, appre-
ciation, trust, awareness of one’s self-esteem, and the management style
preferred by the supervisor. According to R.  Adler (1986, pp.  42–43)
the atmosphere of communication is determined by the following fac-
tors, which result from the culture of a given organization: autonomy,
rewarding achievement, emotional support, development opportunities,
the right to take risks and make mistakes, constructive criticism, open-
ness in expressing opinions, and an acceptance of constructive conflict.
A good atmosphere around the communication between members of an
organization favours work satisfaction, efficiency, and identification with
the company and its goals. An inseparable part of every organization is
conflicts, which are determinants of organizational group behaviours. A
conflict is defined as a discord arising from irreconcilable differences of
opinions or interests, or tension occurring between two or more parties,
leading to a disturbance or opposition (Hellriegel et  al. 2007, p.  294;
Martin and Fellenz 2010, p. 300; Robins and DeCenzo 2002, p. 536;
Tosi et al. 2001, p. 276). According to the approaches to conflict which
can be found in the literature (traditional, interactional, the school of
interpersonal relationships), it can have both positive and negative effects.
Power is another aspect determining communication. This is under-
stood as an individual’s ability, originating from different sources, to influ-
ence the behaviour, attitudes, and decisions of other people (Furnham
2005, p.  412). It is correlated with the level of dependence between
the person affecting and the person affected, and grows in proportion
132 Communication in Organizational Environments

to the increase in dependence between the object of the influence and the
person holding power. This influence stems from actions which positively
or negatively motivate a person to be passive, or change their previous
behaviour, goals, actions, or needs, which are referred to as the effects of
power (Gros 2003, pp. 178–179). According to J. French and B. Raven
(1960, as cited in Robbins and DeCenzo 2002, p. 233), there are five
types of power: coercive power, reward power, legitimate power, expert
power, and referent power. This means that the position occupied by an
employee in the formal hierarchy and the power associated with it are not
necessarily equivalent to their actual influence in the company. Specialist
knowledge or certain personality traits may mean that apart from legiti-
mate power a person can also have expert power and referent power. This
also applies to qualifications and qualities relating to communication.
The members of an organization use their power not only to achieve
goals but also to strengthen their position. The ability to influence other
employees or to react to this influence is largely dependent on proper
communication.
The last of the factors influencing communicative behaviour are
changes which take place at the level of individuals, groups, and entire
organizations. Changes in the functioning of enterprises, resulting,
among others, from increasing globalization, produce certain conse-
quences for communication processes. The increasing diversity of human
resources in terms of the character and durability of participation in the
organization, combined with the cultural differences between individu-
als, mean that communication in enterprises can sometimes encoun-
ter serious problems. As a result of the growing trend for temporary
employment, employee loyalty towards a company and their need for
integration tend to decline. This makes individuals less willing to engage
in communication within the organization, and when they do commu-
nicate, they tend to be less open.
The above discussion of the determinants of employees’ communica-
tion behaviours certainly does not exhaust the issue. The authors decided,
however, that in view of the research problem defined for this work,
rather than performing theoretical and empirical analyses of all the deter-
minants, they would limit themselves to the most important ones. These
factors affect not only the interpersonal communication style of each
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 133

employee, but also their well-being. From both a theoretical and practical
point of view, it seems of interest to assess the strength and the direction
of impact for each of the determinants mentioned on the effectiveness
of communication processes within organizations. These issues were the
subject of empirical research conducted by the authors, the results of
which will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.

4.5 Factors Determining Communication

Behaviours of the Employees6
Psychologists indicate the prevailing importance of the character and per-
sonality of individuals, whereas sociologists emphasize it is the relation-
ships between the participants in the communication process that are
the most significant. Furthermore, researchers who represent the field of
management point to the leading role of factors connected to an organi-
zation as a whole. Therefore, it has been decided that all the aforemen-
tioned areas should come under scrutiny.7 The analysis of variance proved
that there are significant statistical differences between certain groups.8 In
turn, multiple comparisons showed that:

• the influence of organizational factors was evaluated higher than that

of individual factors;
• the influence of group factors was evaluated higher than that of indi-
vidual and organizational factors.

In the opinion of employees, the effectiveness of communication is

principally affected by group determinants, the most important among
6
Subsection based on the following conference paper: Rogala A., Białowąs S., The influence of per-
sonality features and group and organizational conditionings on the effectiveness of internal communica-
tion—hierarchy and  its determinants, in: 13th International Conference Marketing Trends
Proceedings, Jean-Claude Andreani and  Umberto Collesei (eds.), ESCP-AEP European School
of Management, Venice 2014, pp. 1–11.
7
The respondents were asked to indicate which factors affect communication in the workplace and
to what extend using a five-point Likert scale for the evaluation (1—completely unimportant fac-
tor, 5—crucial factor).
8
F (2. 2706) = 572.98; p < 0.001
134 Communication in Organizational Environments

them being the management style (incidentally, this is the most important
factor among all those evaluated—average 4.1), whereas formal commu-
nication networks are relatively the least important determinant (average
3.4, a level close to the most important group factors). The assessment of
the impact of organizational determinants is not very diverse. The most
important among them turns out to be organizational culture and climate
(average 3.7), and the least important the struggle over power within an
organization (average 3.2). In turn, the assessment of the impact of indi-
vidual factors on the effectiveness of internal communication is the most
varied. A significant role is played by the personality and experiences of
individual employees (average ratings 3.9 and 3.6 respectively), whereas
relatively the lowest influence is connected with family status, gender,
profession, and age (average ratings between 2.3 and 2.7). It is worth
noticing that out of the five most important determinants for the effec-
tiveness of internal communication, four are classified as group factors;
and as regards the five least important ones, all five belong to the group
of individual factors (Fig. 4.3).
The general hierarchy obtained is a good point of reference for
determining the significance of factors for specific segments of respon-
dents. Thus, an analysis of the hierarchical differences was performed,

Organisational change
Organisational culture and climate
Organisational structure
Direction of communication flow
Struggle over power in organisation
Personality
Employees' experiences
Values
Education
Age
Profession
Gender
Family status
Management style of superior
Relationships between employees within departments
Conflicts
Relationships between employees within work groups
Formal networks of communication
Informal networks of communication
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Fig. 4.3 The impact of selected determinants on the effectiveness of

internal communication
(Source: Own research)
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 135

which investigated the position of specific features in relation to the over-

all hierarchy. The level of management was taken into consideration first
(Table 4.7). In the case of certain management levels, marked differences
can be observed, especially at the highest level, where managers declared
the struggle over power in the organization (three positions higher than
in the overall hierarchy), the direction of communication (two positions
higher), and organizational culture (also two positions higher) as the most
important factors. However, organizational change and the relationships
between employees within particular departments are less important from
the perspective of top management (in both cases three positions lower
than in the hierarchy). This attitude probably results from the specific
character of work in higher positions, and looking at the functioning
of an organization, and consequently also internal communication, in

Table 4.7 Differences in the hierarchy of importance for the determinants of

internal communicative effectiveness with regard to the management level
Overall
hierarchy Low Middle High
(G) management style of superior 1 1 1 1
(G) relationships between employees 2 2 2 5
within departments
(I) personality 3 3 6 2
(G) conflicts 4 4 4 3
(G) relationships between employees 5 5 3 6
within work groups
(O) organizational culture and climate 6 8 5 4
(I) employees experiences 7 7 7 7
(O) organizational change 8 6 8 11
(O) organizational structure 9 9 10 9
(O) direction of communication flow 10 11 9 8
(G) formal networks of communication 11 10 11 12
(G) informal networks of communication 12 12 12 13
(O) struggle over power in organization 13 13 13 10
(I) values 14 14 14 14
(I) education 15 15 15 15
(I) age 16 16 17 17
(I) profession 17 17 16 16
(I) gender 18 18 18 18
(I) family status 19 19 19 19
Source: Own research
I individual, G group, O organizational
136 Communication in Organizational Environments

a broader context. Interestingly, however, organizational change, which

is considered to be one of the most difficult aspects of communication
management in a company, is thought to be of less importance. In con-
trast, at middle management level, one can notice the minor role of per-
sonality (three positions lower) and the only slightly more important role
of relationships between employees within work groups (two positions
higher). There are no significant differences in the hierarchies among the
employees at lower levels. The cause for such a situation may be the high
percentage of respondents from this group involved in the study.
Furthermore, it was checked whether the sector represented by the
respondents influenced their opinions on the hierarchy of importance for
the determinants of internal communicative effectiveness in the company
(Table 4.8).
The hierarchy of importance for the determinants of internal com-
municative effectiveness varies strongly between sectors. Personality is
considered to be of little importance for communication in companies
involved in manufacturing and in hybrid businesses (respectively seven
and eight positions lower in comparison with the overall hierarchy). It
should be noted that for service enterprises this factor was rated two
positions higher than in the overall hierarchy, so the differences between
rankings is as many as ten positions. Also, in services, education plays a
more important role (six positions higher—in this case the explanation is
obvious). And though the service sector assigns relatively less significance
to the direction of communication (four positions lower); in hybrid busi-
nesses the same factor is four positions higher. In addition, it is worth
pointing out the different ratings with regard to the influence of orga-
nizational culture (three positions higher in hybrid businesses and two
positions lower in the service sector) and organizational change (three
positions higher in services and two positions lower in merchandising).
Manufacturing companies and manufacturing and retail companies
pay less attention to the role of employees in the efficient functioning of
the company: they are not treated as individuals but as a part of a larger
whole. Their importance is greater in the case of services because of more
frequent contacts with customers. Thus, paying more attention to group
and organizational factors in the manufacturing sector and to individual
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 137

Table 4.8 Differences in the hierarchy of importance for the determinants of

internal communicative effectiveness with regard to the sector
Overall
hierarchy Hybrid Services Retail Manufacturing
(G) management style 1 1 2 3 1
of superior
(G) relationships 2 2 3 1 2
between employees
within departments
(I) personality 3 11 1 4 10
(G) conflicts 4 4 4 2 4
(G) relationships 5 5 6 5 3
between employees
within work groups
(O) organizational 6 3 8 6 5
culture and climate
(I) employees 7 10 7 7 6
experiences
(O) organizational 8 8 5 10 7
change
(O) organizational 9 7 10 12 9
structure
(O) direction of 10 6 14 11 8
communication flow
(G) formal networks of 11 9 13 9 11
communication
(G) informal networks 12 12 11 8 12
of communication
(O) struggle over power 13 13 15 14 13
in organization
(I) values 14 14 12 13 14
(I) education 15 16 9 15 15
(I) age 16 17 16 17 17
(I) profession 17 15 18 16 16
(I) gender 18 18 17 19 18
(I) family status 19 19 19 18 19
Source: Own research
I individual, G group, O-organizational

factors in the service sector is not surprising. What is striking, however, is

the low importance assigned to organizational change.
The education of the respondents could conceivably exert a significant
influence on the hierarchy of importance for the determinants of com-
138 Communication in Organizational Environments

municative processes in organizations. As it turns out, however, the

employees’ level of education affects the ranking of factors to a much
lesser degree than could be expected (Table 4.9).
Respondents with basic education considered family status as relatively
more important (three positions higher than in the overall hierarchy).
In turn, those with vocational education perceived a relatively stron-
ger relationship between the effectiveness of communication and the
level of education (five positions higher than in the general hierarchy).
Simultaneously, they attached less importance to the direction of com-
munication and the struggle over power in the organization (both three
positions lower). People with higher education considered the organiza-
tional culture and climate as quite important (three positions higher) but
they attached less significance to conflicts (three positions lower). Finally,
people with full higher education consider the direction of communi-
cation to be more important regarding its effectiveness (three positions
higher) while organizational change to be less so (four positions lower).
Based on the results discussed above, it can be concluded that people
with higher education attach slightly more significance to some organi-
zational factors than people with basic, vocational, or further education.
The final aspect taken into account in the analysis was the age of the
respondents. It turned out that age played a noticeable role in determin-
ing the ranking of factors influencing the efficiency of internal commu-
nication (Table 4.10).
The most visible differences are those in the two extreme groups,
among the youngest and the oldest. Those employees who are under
the age of twenty-four give more importance to organizational culture
(four positions higher than in the overall hierarchy), as well as infor-
mal communication networks and the struggle over power (three posi-
tions higher in both cases). In contrast, the factors which they perceive
as much less significant are personality (personality is as many as nine
positions lower—the largest difference in the ranking) and individual
experiences (six positions lower). On the other hand, older respondents
to a greater degree value the role of education (seven positions higher)
and attach greater significance to organizational change (four positions
higher). According to this group of respondents, only a minor role is
played by factors such as conflicts, organizational culture, the direction
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 139

Table 4.9 Differences in the hierarchy of importance for the determinants of

internal communicative effectiveness with regard to education
Full
Hierarchy Basic Vocational Further Higher higher
(G) management 1 1 1 1 1 1
style of superior
(G) relations 2 3 2 2 4 2
between
employees within
departments
(I) personality 3 4 3 3 2 4
(G) conflicts 4 2 4 6 7 3
(G) relations 5 7 5 4 5 5
between
employees within
work groups
(O) organizational 6 5 8 8 3 6
culture and
climate
(I) employees 7 8 7 5 6 9
experiences
(O) organizational 8 6 6 7 8 12
change
(O) organizational 9 9 11 9 10 8
structure
(O) direction of 10 10 13 11 9 7
communication
flow
(G) formal 11 12 9 10 12 10
networks of
communication
(G) informal 12 11 12 12 11 11
networks of
communication
(O) struggle over 13 15 16 13 13 13
power in
organization
(I) values 14 14 14 14 14 14
(I) education 15 13 10 15 15 15
(I) age 16 17 15 16 17 17
(I) profession 17 19 18 17 16 16
(I) gender 18 18 17 18 18 18
(I) family status 19 16 19 19 19 19
Source: Own research
I individual, G group, O organizational
140 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 4.10 Differences in hierarchy of importance for the determinants of inter-

nal communicative effectiveness with regard to age
Hierarchy 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55+
(G) management style of 1 1 1 1 1 1
superior
(G) relationships between 2 3 2 2 2 3
employees within
departments
(I) personality 3 12 3 6 3 2
(G) conflicts 4 4 4 4 4 7
(G) relationships between 5 5 5 3 6 6
employees within work
groups
(O) organizational culture 6 2 6 5 8 9
and climate
(I) employees experiences 7 13 7 7 5 5
(O) organizational change 8 6 8 9 7 4
(O) organizational 9 7 9 8 10 10
structure
(O) direction of 10 8 10 10 13 13
communication flow
(G) formal networks of 11 11 11 11 9 11
communication
(G) informal networks of 12 9 12 12 12 12
communication
(O) struggle over power in 13 10 13 13 15 16
organization
(I) values 14 14 14 14 14 14
(I) education 15 15 15 15 11 8
(I) age 16 17 17 17 16 15
(I) profession 17 16 16 16 18 18
(I) gender 18 18 18 18 17 17
(I) family status 19 19 19 19 19 19
Source: Own research
I individual, G group, O organizational

of communication, and the struggle over power in an organization (three

positions lower in each case). The differences in the hierarchies are mainly
caused by the different professional experiences of the respondents. Older
people, because of their longer service, are more aware of communication
difficulties which result from educational differences and changes in the
functioning of the company. Younger respondents, in contrast, empha-
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 141

size the importance of informal communication networks and the strug-

gle over power as they are oriented towards establishing relationships, but
also towards working their way up.
It is interesting to look at the differences in the perception of the
impact of the different determinants on the effectiveness of communi-
cation depending on which of the three segments the respondents rep-
resented (Fig.  4.4). To ensure clarity, the graph shows how the values
recorded for each of the three segments differ from the mean. The bars
on the right of the vertical axis represent greater importance assigned to a
factor; and the bars on the left, lower importance.
Group determinants are thought be more important for the effective-
ness of communication in the perception of people from the relationship-
oriented segment, and comparatively less so in the opinion of the
task-oriented segment. The situation is similar with regard to organiza-
tional determinants. However, as regards individual factors the results are
exactly opposite: people from the task-oriented segment consider them to
be relatively more important, and people from the relationship-oriented
segment view them as less important. The analysis showed that in the

Organisational change
Organisational culture and climate
Organisational structure
Direction of communicaon flow
Struggle over power in organisation
Personality
Employees' experiences
Values
Education
Age
Profession
Gender
Family status
Management style of superior
Relationships between employees within departments
Conflicts
Relationships between employees within work groups
Formal networks of communication
Informal networks of communication
–0.6 –0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Task-oriented Relationship-oriented Balanced

Fig. 4.4 The influence of specific factors on the effectiveness of communica-

tion in the defined employee segments—deviations from mean values
(Source: Own research)
142 Communication in Organizational Environments

balanced segment the ratings of all the factors were similar to the mean
values.
Internal communication in enterprises involves a range of tools, but
the degree to which they are used varies. Their use can be assessed in
terms of individual instruments or groups. The following groups can be
distinguished according to the type of tools:

• instruments which require direct contact, such as face-to-face conver-

sation, meetings, board members’ consultation hours, training, inter-
disciplinary teams, staff integration events, celebrating festivals;
• indirect contact instruments, such as employee opinion and attitude
surveys, suggestion and complaint boxes, as well as brochures, leaflets,
and so on;
• printed forms, such as corporate magazines, reports, trade union
publications;
• electronic forms, such as e-mail, Intranet, newsletters, social media, as
well as formal and informal discussion forums for employees;
• corporate media, such as internal television, company radio, bulletin
boards;
• informal communication tools, such as gossip and rumour, informal
staff meetings after work, managers visiting staff at their workplaces
(Management by Wandering Around), informal working groups and
relationships between employees, as well as supporting employee
initiatives.

The best used group is electronic tools, although the differences

between the successive groups are minor (Fig. 4.5).
Only in the case of indirect contact tools is the rating clearly lower.
Greater differences can be observed as regards the use of individual
tools (Fig. 4.6). Here, the ratings range between 2.13 and 4.02, with the
highest value recorded for e-mails, and the lowest for internal television.
The best used instrument is definitely e-mail. Next come Intranets,
visits by superiors, and direct conversation. The arithmetic mean for all
the analysed instruments was 3.15, which indicates moderate satisfaction
among the respondents in this area.
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 143

Electronic forms

Instruments requiring direct contact

Informal communicaon tools

Printed forms

Corporate media

Indirect contact instruments

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Fig. 4.5 Assessment of using groups of instruments for internal communica-

tion (mean values on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means definitely poor use
and 5 means definitely good use)
(Source: Own research)

Interestingly, relatively low scores were recorded for gossip and rumour
(3.23). This may be due to three causes: conveying a large amount of
information through formal means; negative experiences concerning
the reliability of rumours circulating in the organization; and the reluc-
tance of respondents to admit that they approve of such communica-
tion. Considering the moderate satisfaction of the respondents as regards
achieving the information objective of internal communication, the latter
two explanations seem the most likely. Also, the instruments relating to
staff integration received only moderate ratings. Celebrating festivals was
given an average rating of 3.27 and integration events 3.30, while a high
proportion of the respondents (47% and 43% respectively) declared that
these tools are not used in their firms at all. This state of affairs should
be considered alarming, especially in the context of the low assessment
as regards achieving the objectives of internal communication relating to
uniting employees around the mission, values, and strategy of the orga-
nization, and motivating them to work for the benefit of their company.
144 Communication in Organizational Environments

E-mail
Intranet
MBWA
Direct conversation
Training
Corporate magazine
Informal meetings after work
Newsletter
Bulletin boards
Informal relationships between employees
Staff integration events
Meetings
Celebrating festivals
Reports
Gossip and rumours
Brochures, leaflets etc.
Informal working groups
Board members' consultation hours
Informal discussion forums
Interdisciplinary teams
Social media
Employee surveys
Company discussion forum for employees
Trade union publications
Supporting employees' initiatives
Suggestion and complaint boxes
Company radio
Internal television
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Fig. 4.6 Respondents’ assessment of the use of specific internal communica-

tion tools
(Source: Own research)

The respondents whose assessment of the use of internal communi-

cation instruments was the lowest were predominantly those involved
in production. Focused interviews conducted with low-level employees
confirmed that they felt overlooked in the company’s information policy,
which explains their negative attitude to communication activities.
In addition to examining assessments of the use of communication tools,
it is also worth looking at respondents’ preferences for specific tools in the
workplace. Direct conversation is in the majority of cases the preferred tool of
communication (78% of employees). This group comprises both administra-
tive staff and production workers. Another popular instrument is meetings
(57%), particularly for line employees. Other preferred tools include train-
ing, integration events, e-mail, and bulletin boards. Importantly, training and
e-mails tend to be selected by administration staff, while integration events
and bulletin boards by line employees. Management by Walking Around, in
turn, is very popular with people working in production departments.
In an age dominated by electronic media, an interesting phenomenon
is the low rating given to social media as communication tools (only
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 145

6%). Also, requesting a direct assessment (“Should companies use social

media for the purpose of daily communication with employees?”) did not
render conclusive results. More than 38% of workers were opposed, but
one-third considered this to be a good solution (the remaining respon-
dents had no opinion on the matter). Qualitative research revealed that
activity on popular social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter is
associated with the sphere of private life.
It is noticeable that respondents belonging to the three segments have
significantly different perceptions of specific internal communication
tools (Fig. 4.7).
Task-oriented employees show a stronger preference for electronic
forms, working in teams, and support for employees’ initiatives.
Relationship-oriented people, on the other hand, favour the use of bul-
letin boards as well as meetings and e-mails. Finally, balanced employees
more frequently than the other two groups show a preference for com-
pany media and information provided informally.

Supporting employees' initiatives

Informal relationships between employees
Informal working groups
MBWA
Informal meetings after work
Gossip and rumours
Bulletin boards
Company radio
Internal television
Informal discussion forums
Company discussion forum for employees
Social media
Newsleer
Intranet
E-mail
Trade union publications
Reports
Corporate magazine
Brochures, leaflets etc.
Suggestion and complaint boxes
Employee surveys
Celebrating festivals
Staff integration events
Interdisciplinary teams
Training
Board members' consultation hours
Meetings
Direct conversation
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Task-oriented Relationship-oriented Balanced

Fig. 4.7 Popularity of communication tools in the defined employee seg-

ments—deviations from mean values
(Source: Own research)
146 Communication in Organizational Environments

Based on the results of the research, the authors created a list of fac-
tors which significantly influence the effectiveness of communication
in an organization. The factors were grouped according to the theory
of organizational behaviours into individual, group, and organizational
ones. In the light of the analysis of inter-group variance, the influence of
organizational indicators was evaluated as higher than that of individual
indicators. In addition, the influence of group indicators was considered
as statistically more important than individual and organizational indica-
tors. A ranking of determinants with the strongest influence on the effec-
tiveness of communication in the workplace was also compiled. These
include group indicators relating to their superior’s management style
and relations between employees in particular departments, as well as
personality, which is an individual factor. Conflicts, relations between
those employed within working groups, culture, atmosphere, organiza-
tional changes, and the individual experiences of employees can be enu-
merated as other crucial determinants.
The impact of the specific groups of determinants turns out to vary
depending on the segment of employees. Group and organizational deter-
minants are considered to exert a stronger influence on the effectiveness
of communication in the relationship-oriented segment, whereas task-ori-
ented employees regard their influence as weaker. In turn, individual fac-
tors are more important for the task-oriented segment and less significant
for relationship-oriented employees. The ratings obtained for the balanced
segment are close to the mean values for all the analysed factors.
The greatest discrepancies between the traditional determinants in the
evaluation of the influence of specific factors on the effectiveness of inter-
nal communication was recorded for variables relating to the sector, age,
and level of education, whereas the variable connected with the level of
management was characterized by the least visible differences. Based on
the results obtained from the research it is worth referring to the thesis
about the importance of the role of individual factors in the effectiveness
of internal communication. These factors (excluding personality and
individual experiences) turned out to be insignificant, regardless of the
segment.
Proper management of the communication process in an organization
requires, on the one hand, an analysis of its determinants, and on the
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 147

other hand, identifying the factors which positively or negatively influ-

ence the effectiveness of the communication activities undertaken. This
is the reason being familiar with the catalogue of determinants for the
effectiveness of internal communication is so important. Being aware of
the hierarchy of importance for the determinants, making an accurate
diagnosis of the communication process inside a company, and draw-
ing appropriate conclusions should contribute to an improvement in an
organization’s functioning both in the internal and external market. It is
also vital to use appropriate instruments, which would correspond to the
needs and preferences of the personnel in this respect.

References
Adler, R. (1986). Communicating at work. New York: Wydawnictwo Random
House.
Bedell, J. R., & Lennox, S. S. (1997). Handbook for communication and problem-
solving skills training. A cognitive-behavioral approach. New York: Wiley.
Champoux, J. (2011). Organizational behavior: Integrating individuals, groups
and organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Crystal, D. (1991). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Daly, J.  A. (2002). Personality and interpersonal communication. w: M.  L.
Knapp, J. A. Daly (red.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (Wyd. 3).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Encyklopedia PWN, online version, http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl. Accessed
September 2015.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power, w: D. Cartwright
& A.  E. Zander (red.), Group dynamics: Research and theory. New  York:
Harper & Row.
French, R., Rayner, C., Rees, G., Rumbles, S., Schermerhorn, J., Jr., Hunt, J.,
& Osborn, R. (2011). Organizational behaviour. Queensland: Wiley.
Frydrychowicz, S. (2009). Komunikacja interpersonalna w zarządzaniu. Poznań:
Wydawnictwo Forum Naukowe.
Furnham, A. (2005). The psychology of behaviour at work: The individual in the
organization. New York: Routledge Press.
Gach D., & Pietruszka-Ortyl A. (2005). Przywództwo i style kierowania, w:
A. Potocki (red.), Zachowania organizacyjne. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Difin.
148 Communication in Organizational Environments

Gordon, J. (2002). Organizational behaviour. A diagnostic approach to organiza-

tional behaviour (wyd. 7). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Griffin, R.  W., & Moorhead, G. (2009). Organizational behavior: Managing
people and organizations. Mason: South-Western.
Gros, U. (2003). Zachowania organizacyjne w teorii i praktyce zarządzania.
Warsaw: PWN.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Mody, B. (2002). Handbook of international and intercul-
tural communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.  W., & Woodman, R.  W. (1992). Organizational
behavior. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.  W., & Woodman, R.  W. (2007). Organizational
behaviour. Mason: Thomson Learning.
Kostecka, A. (1997). Umiejętność lidera klubu pracy. Warsaw: KUP.
Kożusznik, B. (2007). Zachowania człowieka w organizacji. Warsaw: Polskie
Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.
Kraśniak, J. (2008). Struktura organizacyjna przedsiębiorstwa. w: K. Krzakiewicz
(red.), Teoretyczne podstawy organizacji i zarządzania. Poznań: Wydawnictwo
Akademii Ekonomicznej.
Kurcz, I. (2000). Psychologia języka i komunikacji. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe Scholar.
Martin, J., & Fellenz, M. (2010). Organizational behaviour & management.
Hampshire: Cengage Learning EMEA.
McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (2005). Sztuka skutecznego porozumie-
wania się. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2008). Organizational behavior: Emerging
realities for the workplace revolution. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Moczydłowska, J. (2006). Zachowania organizacyjne w nowoczesnym
przedsiębiorstwie. Katowice: Śląsk.
Morreale, S. P., Spitzberg, B. H., & Barge, J. K. (2007). Komunikacja między
ludźmi. Motywacja, wiedza i umiejętności. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN SA.
Mullins, L.  J. (1993). Management and organisational behaviour. London:
Pitman Publishing.
Nęcki, Z. (2000). Komunikacja międzyludzka. Cracow: Antykwa.
Nielsen, J. (2008). Effective communications skills. The foundations for change.
USA: Xlibris Corporation.
Oleksyn, T. (2006). Zarządzanie kompetencjami. Cracow: Wydawnictwo
Oficyna Ekonomiczna.
 4 Communication Behaviours in an Organization 149

Olson, L. N. (2002). As ugly and painful as it was, it was effective: Individuals’
unique assessment of communication competence during aggressive conflict
episodes. Communication Studies, 53(2), 171–188, Summer.
Olsztyńska, A. (2005). Marketing wewnętrzny w przedsiębiorstwie: koncepcja i
narzędzia wspomagające integrację działań wewnętrznych organizacji. Poznań:
Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
Penc, J. (2011). Zachowania organizacyjne w przedsiębiorstwie. Warsaw: Oficyna
a Wolters Kluwer Business.
Potocki, A. (2001). Komunikacja wewnętrzna w przedsiębiorstwie. Cracow:
Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie.
Potocki, A., Winkler, R., & Żbikowska, A. (2003). Techniki komunikacji w orga-
nizacjach gospodarczych. Warsaw: Difin.
Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behaviour. Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall International.
Robbins, S. P. (2004). Zachowania w organizacji. Warsaw: PWE.
Robbins, S.  P., & DeCenzo, D.  A. (2002). Podstawy zarządzania. Warsaw:
PWE.
Rogala, A. (2013). Determinanty skuteczności komunikacji wewnętrznej w
przedsiębiorstwie. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis written at the Faculty of
Management of the Poznań University of Economics and defended 18/
Sep./2013, Poznań.
Rogala, A., & Białowąs, S. (2014). The influence of personality features and
group and organizational conditionings on the effectiveness of internal com-
munication—Hierarchy and its determinants. In J.-C.  Andreani &
U. Collesei (Eds.), 13th International conference marketing trends proceedings
(pp. 1–11). Venice: ESCP-AEP European School of Management.
Rosengren, K. E. (2006). Communication: An introduction. London/Thousand
Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.
Roy, M. H. (2001). Small group communication and performance: Do cogni-
tive flexibility and context matter. Management Decision, 39(4), 323–330.
Sikorski, C. (2001). Zachowania ludzi w organizacji. Warszawa: PWN.
Sobkowiak, B. (2005). Interpersonalne i grupowe komunikowanie się w orga-
nizacji. Poznań/Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Forum Naukowe.
Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). A model of intercultural communication competence.
w: L.  Samovar & R.  Porter (red.), Intercultural communication: A reader.
Belmont: Wadsworth.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication compe-
tence. Beverly Hills: Sage.
150 Communication in Organizational Environments

Spitzberg, B. H., Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1994). A competence-based

approach to the study of interpersonal conflict. w: D. D. Cahn (red.), Conflict
in personal relationships. Hillsdale: Elbraum.
Świetlik, W. (2004). Organizacja przedsiębiorstwa. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo
Wyższej Szkoły Ekonomicznej.
Szymańska, A. (2004). Public relations w systemie zintegrowanej komunikacji
marketingowej. Wrocław: Unimex.
Tosi, H. L., Mero, N. P., & Rizzo, J. R. (2001). Managing organizational behav-
ior. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Wachowiak, J. (2011). Dysfunkcjonalne zachowania pracowników. Warsaw: Difin
SA.
Wood, J. T. (2009). Gender, w: 21st Century Communication: A Reference
Handbook, W.F. Eadie (ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Wood, J. T. (2010). Interpersonal communication. Everyday encounters. Boston:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
 5
Determinants of Internal
Communication Effectiveness

This chapter discusses issues related to the effectiveness of internal

communication from a praxeological point of view. In the light of quanti-
tative and qualitative research results, the authors will analyse the catego-
ries of efficiency, quality, and the effectiveness of internal communication,
along with their components. They will also present a theoretical model
of interdependence between the determinants of internal communication
and its effectiveness, as well as presenting a measuring instrument—an
evaluation sheet for the effectiveness of internal communication, which
gives rise to an integrated index of internal communication effectiveness.
What is more, a list of factors that increase or decrease internal communi-
cation effectiveness will also be presented. On the basis of the conclusions,
the model of internal communication will be modified and updated.

5.1 Reference Points for the Evaluation of

Communication in Organizations
The growing role of information in the modern world, as well as the
advancement of information technology, mean that companies are
beginning to devote more and more attention to the processes of

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 151

A. Rogala, S. Bialowas, Communication in Organizational
Environments, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54703-3_5
152 Communication in Organizational Environments

internal information and communication. It would be difficult to

find counterarguments for the statement that the effectiveness of the
internal information flow significantly determines the performance of
a company as a whole. Without appropriate and up-to-date informa-
tion it is difficult for employees to perform their duties and thus meet
the needs and expectations of customers. For this reason, the processes
of internal communication are regarded today as an important area of
management and as such are subjected to diagnostic assessment. An
ineffective flow of information can lead to ineffectiveness throughout
the organization. Therefore, there is an increasing trend to treat com-
munication and information as strategic management areas (see Galliers
and Leidner 2003; Argenti 2007; Cornelissen 2011; Mière 2012).
To regard information and communication in strategic terms requires
a comprehensive approach both to information as well as to the partici-
pants and stakeholders of the two processes. To this end, three streams of
information ought to be taken into account: information that originates
in the company and is used for internal needs; information that originates
in the environment and is used by the organization; and information that
originates in the company and is addressed to the environment. Strategic
information management requires the formulation of such aims and
objectives of the information function that are consistent with the overall
strategy of the company. Then, it is crucial to appropriately structure the
information system (Martyniak 1997, p. 16). The basis for the formula-
tion of a global information strategy and its partial strategies should be
the global strategy of a company. It is also important to take into account
the information and communication potential of an organization. Among
the key factors which play a role in the creation of an information strategy,
M. Klotz and P. Strauch distinguish the following: the global and partial
strategies of a company; the size of the information gap identified; the
resources of the information system; the environment; and the informa-
tion culture (Klotz and Strauch 1990, as cited in Martyniak 1997, p. 20).
In summary, in order to formulate an information strategy it is essential
to analyse potential information capabilities, disseminate the knowledge
obtained in this regard, and identify the currently functioning informa-
tion system. In subsequent steps, potential strategies are developed and
strategic options are created, which make it possible to determine the
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 153

optimal communication strategy. The final step is developing a strategic

plan which will enable the implementation of the selected strategy.
Strategic communication management seems to be a rather complex
process, considered by some organizations to be a kind of challenge. It
concerns, just as in the case of information, both internal and external
recipients. It is important at this point to emphasize the necessity for con-
sistency between the communication which is addressed to those within
a company and the communication addressed to its environment. In
view of the fact that the strategic management of communication should
include both internal and external communication and that the proce-
dure in both cases is the same, this book discusses the issue on the basis
of communication within an organization.
The main problem connected with strategic communication is
that it is necessary to perceive internal communication as a reciprocal
exchange. In some companies it is still believed that informing employ-
ees is synonymous with communicating with them. As a result, in both
cases they use the same instruments, which were designed for the one-
way transmission of messages. Another problem is a mismatch between
the amount and type of information exchanged and the real needs and
expectations of the staff. Hence, the starting point for the strategic
management of communication is to analyse the current situation with
regard to internal communication. Such an analysis ought to include the
activities undertaken as part of communication, the tools and channels
used, as well as the findings of diagnostic research into the communica-
tion process. One must bear in mind that it may be necessary to adjust
the organizational structure or provide appropriate training for employ-
ees. Subsequent steps involve establishing the objectives for the com-
munication process in the company and segmenting its participants, in
particular the addressees. Then it is necessary to specify the content of
messages as well as their possible forms. The penultimate stage in the
strategic management of communication is the choice of actions and
media. The actions relate to steps that must be taken to enable effec-
tive communication. The media, in turn, should be tailored to specific
groups of recipients and their needs in terms of obtaining information.
The final step is to estimate the costs and prepare a budget for the entire
project (ibid., p. 22).
154 Communication in Organizational Environments

To implement strategic communication management it is necessary to

formulate appropriate procedures in this area. A communication strat-
egy is understood as a comprehensive approach to how an organization
should achieve its communication objectives. It is created according to
the following general scheme (Heath 2005, p. 163):

• defining specific target audiences,

• selecting appropriate communication channels and instruments to
reach the specific stakeholders,
• creating themed messages tailored to different groups of recipients.

An internal communication strategy is part of an overall communi-

cation strategy aimed at different groups of stakeholders, which defines
how the organization wants to be perceived. It often stems from the need
to match the internal and external image of a company. The process of
developing the content of such a strategy proceeds in three stages. The first
stage is evaluating the whole organization in terms of its perception by
different recipients in a given period in relation to the desired image. If a
gap is found to exist, a so-called strategic intent is formulated. This shows
the general direction of communication activities, usually expressed in
the form of objectives, and indicates the measures that must be taken for
their proper implementation (Cornelissen 2012, p. 121). The starting
point for its creation is therefore an assessment of the current reputa-
tion of a company among its stakeholders and addressing the question of
whether the organization wants to modify or consolidate this image. The
actions planned as part of the strategic intent are designed to influence
the awareness, knowledge, and behaviour of important reference groups.
In the next step, the strategic intent is converted to themed messages.
They relate to the organization's specific abilities, values, and strengths,
and are systematically and consistently communicated to stakeholder
groups. The last step involves the conversion of themed messages into
different message styles, which help to communicate the messages in a
convincing manner. The following styles can be distinguished: generic,
rational, symbolic association, emotional, and pre-emptive (ibid., pp.
129–134). The choice of style depends on the content of the message, its
recipients, as well as the conditions in which the organization operates.
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 155

According to B. Quirke, strategy is one of seven communication links,

the remaining ones being leadership, planning and prioritization, channel
management and content development, the role of internal communica-
tion functions, face-to-face communication, and impact measurement
(2011, pp. 40–41). A communication strategy should be linked to the
overall business strategy, and in particular it should facilitate its under-
standing. Therefore it is vital to define it clearly, to determine what kind
of behaviour is expected of employees, and to direct communication
in such a way as to ensure obtaining specific behaviours and attitudes
among the staff. All the links in the circle of communication are designed
to enable the re-involvement of staff in the plans of an organization. The
aim is not only to repair any broken links but also to redefine the role and
importance of internal communication, because the processes of inter-
nal communication are not just about the flow of information, but also
about creating a meaning for the transmitted messages among all the
employees.
A communication strategy is the result of both planned and
unplanned processes, occurring in response to unforeseen events. It
must be remembered, however, that it ought to be diffused through-
out all the units within the organizational structure rather than being
considered only as a set of objectives and tactics at the functional or
operational level. For it to be properly implemented, it is crucial to
identify and eliminate any obstacles that hinder communication in the
workplace.
When analysing and evaluating internal communication, one can also
consider it in terms of the costs incurred and the results obtained, as well
as meeting the communication needs of employees. In the case of the first
factor, a quantitative approach is adopted to measure the efficiency or
cost-effectiveness of the entire process as well as the individual tools used.
For most companies, determining the productiveness can be problematic
because of the need to link certain inputs with specific results. In turn,
the second of these perspectives assumes that the starting point for com-
municative activities should be employees' needs in this area. In practice,
however, these are usually the needs of the organization as a whole. The
satisfaction of employees with the effectiveness of internal communica-
tion was considered in Chap. 3.
156 Communication in Organizational Environments

5.2 Components for the Evaluation of

Internal Communication: An Integrated
Approach1
In the literature on communication, its process and results are usually
evaluated using the category of efficiency or effectiveness, less often pro-
ductivity. The analysis is normally limited to determining whether the
message sent by the sender is appropriately understood by the addressee.
This approach, appropriate in terms of linguistics, seems to be insuffi-
cient in the case of communication considered from the point of view
of organization and management. Communication between a company
and its internal and external recipients should cause them to undertake,
discontinue, or modify certain actions. Therefore, when assessing the
organizational communication process it is essential to focus on the pur-
sued goals and the degree of their attainment.
As mentioned earlier, the communication process in an organization
can be assessed with respect to a number of issues, which include, among
others, the results, the incurred expenditure, the tools, and the degree to
which the needs of recipients are satisfied. However, considering the pur-
pose of organizations and the significant impact of communication on
their functioning, the most important factor seems to be producing the
desired effects. In the literature, the efficiency, productivity, and effective-
ness of internal communication are analysed, but the definitions of these
notions are not clear-cut. Effectiveness tends to be identified with both
efficiency and productivity. However, these terms should be clarified in
order to enable a full assessment of organizational communication. For
an analysis of the communication processes in companies it seems appro-
priate to adopt a praxeological perspective. Therefore, as part of the theo-
retical considerations undertaken in this book, internal communication
will be analysed in the context of its efficiency, effectiveness, and produc-
tivity, identified with praxeological economy. Additionally, the analysis
includes the notion of quality. However, when analysing the results of

1
Subsection based on the following paper: Rogala A., The Relations between the Internal
Communication Conditionings and Its Effectiveness, International Journal of Arts & Sciences 2014
no. 7(2) – University Publications, pp. 69–77.
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 157

empirical studies, the authors will concentrate on the effectiveness of

internal communication.
Praxeologists assume that efficiency is a universal measure, allow-
ing for the assessment of any activity. Its basic forms are effectiveness,
economy, and profitability. According to B. Sobkowiak, the efficiency
of communication in an organization can be assessed only with ref-
erence to its universal meaning, identical with effectiveness (2005, p.
244). She enumerates the following features of efficient communica-
tion (2005, p. 244):

• it produces the maximum level of mutual understanding between par-

ties, resulting in a high level of satisfactory cooperation for communi-
cation participants;
• it enables the constant and dynamic shaping, modifying, or altering of
attitudes, behaviour, and knowledge, in line with the values and inter-
ests of the interacting parties.

In her definition, the author emphasizes mutual understanding and

cooperation, as well as modifying the attitudes and behaviours of other
participants in the communication processes. In this approach, the
notion of the efficiency of internal communication is treated as equal to
its effectiveness. However, efficiency can be understood as either the skil-
ful organization of some activities or actions, or the practical ability to
do something. Therefore, when analysing the efficiency of internal com-
munication one can refer to a number of aspects:

• the efficiency of the process itself, meaning the ability to manage the
process in such a way as to limit the occurrence of disturbances which
could distort the message transmitted;
• striving to minimize the information gap (e.g. access to information,
amount of information received in relation to information needed,
reliability, and completeness of messages received);
• ability to select instruments appropriate for communicating with
diverse groups of recipients (e.g. adapting communication activities to
employees’ needs);
• ability to communicate with different target groups;
158 Communication in Organizational Environments

• creating fast communication routes so that a message can reach the

recipient in the shortest possible time (speed of information flow);
• ensuring feedback between the sender and the receiver (e.g. appropri-
ate communicative atmosphere).

Another important component of communication efficiency is uti-

lizing the knowledge and communication skills of the participants
(Frydrychowicz 2009, p. 167).
For a communication system to function smoothly it is necessary to
observe certain universal principles (Sobkowiak 1998, p. 37). First of all,
all the channels used in this process must be as short as possible and well-
known to the members of an organization. Information should reach
all members of the organization, without skipping intermediate links.
In addition, all the positions serving as communication network links
should be occupied by people with the appropriate competences. It is also
essential to ensure that the channels are not blocked and that the network
does not break, since its stability guarantees an uninterrupted supply of
information.
For the purpose of this book, the efficiency of internal communi-
cation will therefore be equated with the practical skills possessed by
members of an organization, in particular by the people responsible
for the functioning of the communication process. These skills serve
the purpose of providing communication which is fast, reliable, two-
way, undistorted, and tailored to specific audiences, and which enables
the proper functioning of individuals and groups in the workplace
as well as of the organization as a whole. Accordingly, the following
aspects must be evaluated when analysing the efficiency of internal
communication:

• access to information,
• speed of information flow,
• amount of information received relative to the amount of information
needed,
• reliability and completeness of received messages,
• adjusting communicative activities to the needs of employees,
• communication atmosphere.
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 159

Communication efficiency is associated primarily with the objective

of relaying current news about the organization to employees, there-
fore representing the flow of information. Summing up, the efficiency
of the communication process contributes to achieving the communi-
cation objectives of organizations; however, it does not guarantee their
attainment.
The efficiency of the communication process influences its productiv-
ity, which is also ambiguously defined in the literature. The productivity
of communication is understood as, among others, receiving the mean-
ing of messages as intended by the sender, and therefore it is connected
with the so-called cognitive goal. It is determined by similarities in the
communication skills, attitudes, education, social experience, and cul-
ture of both sides of the process (Sikorski 2001, pp. 194–196). One can
also find a slightly different approach, in which productivity encompasses
efficiency, equated with an appropriate use of communication skills, and
effectiveness, understood as achieving the purpose for which communica-
tion was undertaken (Frydrychowicz 2009, p. 167). The cited approaches
to the issue of internal communication productivity are characterized by
a limited possibility of quantification. In English-language publications
productivity is often identified with effectiveness, though these terms
are far from equivalent. A quantitative understanding of productivity is
often used in these publications. Many authors point to the relationship
between communication processes in an organization and the productiv-
ity and efficiency of various aspects connected with its functioning (cf.
Clampitt and Downs 1993; Finney 2011; Hargie et al. 2003; Linke and
Zerfass 2011; Stayer 1990). There are attempts to apply the quantitative
approach to assess communication in a company, with a view to con-
firming its contribution to the improvement of financial results, possibly
by means of the return on investment (ROI) index. However, neither
scientists nor practitioners are unanimous as to the way of measuring
profitability in relation to communicational activities. Specialists in
internal communication indicate the following aspects where the impact
should regularly be assessed (Meng and Berger 2012, p. 342):

• increased awareness and understanding among personnel;

• increased engagement of employees;
160 Communication in Organizational Environments

• improved work productivity;

• changes in employee behaviour;
• improved performance of the organization as a whole.

A systematic analysis of the communicative activity in an organization

helps to formulate the correct objectives, select the appropriate tools, and
develop the desired attitudes and behaviours of employees. Efficient and
productive internal communication between all the parties involved is
particularly important at the group level because it is conducive to suc-
cessful socialization, a process during which new and/or existing members
of a group learn to adjust to one other through communication (Adams
and Galanes 2008, p. 190). Socialization, in turn, affects certain group
processes such as leadership, the roles fulfilled in a group, the observed
norms, and the group climate.
For internal communication to be productive, it must fulfil three
conditions: be linked with business objectives, be based on a clear set
of expected results, and be focused on the transformation of informa-
tion into understanding and action (Quirke 2011, p. 368). However,
productivity can be measured in relation to a specific instrument or
channel of communication rather than the communication process
as a whole. In the authors’ opinion, the productivity of internal com-
munication can be analysed with reference to the following issues
(Rogala 2013):

• appropriate, that is, economically justified use of tools, so that the

measurable effects of their use are higher than the input;
• assessing the information policy of a company in the context of its
costs as well as generated effects such as increasing work productivity,
reducing the time staff spend looking for information, and so on;
• comparing the costs of the communication tools used with the bene-
fits arising from the information passed by means of these tools.

All the remaining aspects of the communication process in an orga-

nization are related to either its efficiency or effectiveness. In the light
of the above considerations, the category of the productivity of inter-
nal communication should be identified with praxeological economy.
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 161

Nevertheless, due to the difficulties in measuring this, the authors did

not include this area in their research.
The productivity and efficiency of the communication processes
within an organization contribute to its proper functioning. However,
a particularly important aspect of internal communication is effective-
ness—without it, it is difficult to achieve good results in any other area
of a company’s activity. This refers to the attainment of the purpose for
which a certain action was undertaken. It is also extremely important in
the context of the communication activities conducted in an organiza-
tion. As a reminder, Sects.  3.1 and 3.2 contain a detailed discussion of
the objectives and functions of communication in organizations. For the
purposes of this book, it is assumed that the set of internal communica-
tion objectives includes the following sub-objectives:

• providing employees with the up-to-date information necessary for

their proper functioning in the organization;
• preparing employees for upcoming changes;
• uniting employees around the mission, values, and strategy of the
organization;
• creating a positive atmosphere in the workplace;
• building a positive image of the company among employees;
• motivating employees to work for the benefit of the company.

The primary objective of internal communication is to ensure the

smooth transfer of reliable and up-to-date information to all members
of an organization. Considering the fact that in addition to the informa-
tion objective there are also other objectives for communication in orga-
nizations, it seems necessary to adopt a broader perspective to explore
the issue of the effectiveness of this communication. In the theory of
communication, it is typically analysed at the level of information flow:
the level of communicative effectiveness depends on the degree of conver-
gence between the sender’s intention and the recipient’s understanding.
As for the praxeology theory, the measure of effectiveness is the degree to
which variously defined objectives are achieved. In this way the effective-
ness of internal communication can be analysed in terms of achieving
particular, for example, motivational, goals.
162 Communication in Organizational Environments

It should be remembered that the effectiveness of communication is

assessed in relation to the results expected. According to U. Gros (2003,
p. 166), the effectiveness of internal communication can be full, high,
or low. If the recipient understands the received message as intended by
the sender, and the goal which was the direct cause for initiating the con-
tact is reached, communication is considered to be fully effective. High
effectiveness occurs when the sender has confirmation of the information
having been received and there is a formal opportunity for attaining the
pragmatic objective of the message. On the other hand, the effective-
ness of communication is considered to be low when, despite having
confirmation of the message being received, the probability of achieving
the pragmatic goal of the information is small. In extreme situations,
communication within organizations can in fact be counterproductive,
regardless of whether its cognitive goal has been reached or not. In prac-
tice, it is rarely possible to achieve full effectiveness, which is why any
analysis should also take into account any unintended but positive effects
(Morreale et al. 2007, p. 69).
Effectiveness applies to all forms of organizational communication,
and its level is directly proportional to the degree of convergence between
what the sender wanted to convey and what the recipient understood, as
well as the degree to which the pragmatic goal behind initiating the com-
munication has been achieved. Furthermore, the effectiveness of internal
communication in creating a sense of identification with an organization
is the highest when the employees are included in a bilateral process of
communication rather than restricting it only to issuing instructions and
receiving reports (Cornelissen 2012, s.230). It is important to note that
the participants in the process need not, and usually do not, have the
same communication goals; hence the effectiveness of communication
can be approached from two different perspectives: that of the senders of
messages and that of the recipients.
A.  Olsztyńska (2002, pp. 169–170) lists several recommenda-
tions which can help an organization improve the effectiveness of its
communication:

• emphasizing the role of the receiver in the communication process;

• ensuring an appropriate quality of communication;
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 163

• ensuring an appropriate division of roles between the managers of

different levels;
• maintaining consistency between communication and organizational
culture.

A very important issue is adapting the message to the recipient, in

particular to their perceptions, needs, level of understanding, and val-
ues. Moreover, the conveyed information should be relevant and reliable
from the point of view of the recipient. It is also necessary to ensure that
any communication is of a high quality (more on this subject later in
the chapter). Communication roles should therefore be correctly distrib-
uted among managers, whose task is to convert a company’s policy into
specific decisions and actions. The final point is integrating a company’s
internal communication with any professed values, attitudes and beliefs.
Implementing the above recommendations will help an organization
improve its image among the personnel.
The determinants of effective communication can be considered from
the perspective of communication theory or psychology. In the former
approach, the effectiveness of the communication process is directly pro-
portional to the degree of convergence between the intention of the sender
and the understanding of the message by the recipient. The factors which
determine this kind of effectiveness include the sender’s self-understanding,
their communication skills, the appropriate perception of the recipient by
the sender, the recipient’s ability to receive and interpret the message, the
minimizing of noise, and fulfilling the communicative function intended
by the sender. On the other hand, from the point of view of psychology,
communication is effective when it helps to build a positive relationship
between interlocutors and strengthens the emotional bond between them.
The determinants of this kind of effectiveness include mutual familiarity
and trust, precise and unambiguous mutual understanding, mutual sup-
port and influence, as well as constructive problem solving and conflict
resolution (Szymańska 2004, pp. 36–37).
The recipients of internal communication are always people. Hence,
the question arises as to what is more important for achieving the objec-
tives of internal communication and thus its effectiveness: organizational,
individual, or perhaps group factors? It seems reasonable to say that it
164 Communication in Organizational Environments

depends on the level at which communication takes place. For example,

at the level of the whole organization the directions of communication
and the organizational structure should be relevant; at the group level—
the management style of the supervisors and the relationships between
the group members; and at the interpersonal level—the communication
skills of the participants in the process.
Apart from efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness, a significant aspect
of internal communication is its quality, because it is the quality rather than
the quantity of received information which is of key importance in terms of
the strengths and weaknesses of communication processes in an organiza-
tion. Quality is the degree to which a given object, action, or service meets
the requirements of the assessor. In this case, the evaluation will be made by
employees (the recipients in the process of internal communication). In view
of the fact that quality means meeting the requirements of the customer,
and the customer and recipient of communication activities is the personnel,
these activities ought to be analysed from the employees’ perspective.
The quality of internal communication can be examined from three
perspectives: the organizational policy, the professionals responsible for its
development, and the relationship groups. It is understood as the extent
to which communication contributes to the efficiency or effectiveness of
organizational policy and strengthens the relationships between the par-
ties on whom the organization depends for its proper functioning (Vos
and Schoemaker 2004, p. 17). Adopting a range of different perspectives
when analysing the issue of communication quality, improves the pros-
pects for the correct and successful implementation of communication
strategies as well as the efficient management of internal communication.
The pyramid of communication quality, developed by E.  Robertson,
consists of four levels, and advancing through them leads to success with
regard to this issue (as cited in Holtz 2004, p. 15). The first level is logistics,
which involves making every effort to ensure that the information reaches
the appropriate recipients in an appropriate form and at an appropriate
time. This is the only step on the road to communication quality over
which the people involved in the process of organizational communication
have any control. Assuming that at the logistics level everything has gone
as planned, the next challenge is to attract the attention of the staff. At this
stage it must be remembered that in communication activities there is no
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 165

such audience as all employees. Therefore, the content and form of mes-
sages should be tailored to specific recipients. The next level is the relevance
of information for employees. Once the attention of the recipients has been
attracted, it is necessary to convince the employees that the communica-
tions conveyed are relevant in the context of their work. The final level
is that of influencing employees through communication and consists of
three steps: influencing what employees think, influencing their commit-
ment, and influencing their actions. Achieving the final level of communi-
cation is evidence of its high quality.
The quality of the communication process, just as the communication
process itself, is a complex issue which comprises several elements (as
cited in Olsztyńska 2002, p. 169):

• awareness of the communication process resulting from relevance for

the recipient and simplicity of communication form;
• understanding based on message clarity and dialogue;
• credibility related to unifying the corporate mission, vision, and strat-
egy with actual employee behaviour;
• commitment, which stems from the employees’ sense of belonging to
an organization, as well as an awareness of their contribution to its
functioning and development.

High-quality internal communication makes it easier for the objectives

to be achieved and improve the efficiency of the instruments used.
For the purpose of analysing and assessing the overall quality of orga-
nizational communication, M.F.  Vos and H.  Schoemaker adapted the
balanced scorecard devised by R.S.  Kaplan and D.P.  Norton. In their
work, they indicated five dimensions for the quality of communication
(Vos and Schoemaker 2004, p. 39):

• dimension 1—clarity, that is, intelligibility of message content;

• dimension 2—environment orientation;
• dimension 3—consistency;
• dimension 4—responsiveness and using feedback to enhance
communication;
• dimension 5—effectiveness and efficiency.
166 Communication in Organizational Environments

All the above dimensions of quality also apply to internal communication.

Analysing the internal communication process through the use of the
scorecard makes it possible to eliminate or reduce the impact of negative
factors.
In the literature one can also find a proposal to assess the quality of
communication in an informational dimension. The conceptual model
created by E. Lesca and H. Lesca is used primarily to analyse the flow of
information within an organization and detect possible problems associ-
ated with it (1995, pp. 196–197). The assessment focuses on the organiza-
tion of the process, with particular emphasis on the reliability of messages,
access to information, feedback, the language used for communication, as
well as the integration of information and communication technologies.
To perform such an assessment a range of surveys and interviews are used.
High-quality internal communication not only facilitates the achieve-
ment of its purposes, but also raises the efficiency of the tools used. In ear-
lier studies it was treated only as a combination of efficiency, productivity,
and effectiveness. In the authors’ opinion, though, such a comprehensive
approach, however valuable, may blur any distinctions between the areas
assessed and lead to their overlapping. Consequently, it might be diffi-
cult to determine the degree of efficiency, productivity, effectiveness, as
well as the quality of internal communication, as the areas analysed will
often contain common assessment criteria. That is why, in this book, the
quality of internal communication is analysed from the point of view of
the method of achieving the objectives of communication, which assumes
respecting social norms and interlocutors’ feelings. As a starting point, the
authors have adopted the criterion of congruence, discussed in the section
on communicative competence, which is defined as correct and appro-
priate behaviour in a particular communicational situation. Therefore, it
is assumed that a high level of staff communicative competence, good
relations among employees, appropriate organizational structure, as well
as the organizational culture and climate contribute to a high quality of
communication process. Depending on the organization, all these aspects
positively or negatively influence the quality of internal communication.
Due to the consequences of a defective communication process, aiming
for this to be of high quality should be one of the objectives of communi-
cational activities undertaken within an organization (Rogala 2013).
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 167

5.3 The Essence, Types and Principles of a

Communication Audit
Communication processes and their impact on the functioning of an
organization should be regularly monitored. Evaluations ought to be
conducted over a wide range of impact levels, and every link of the pro-
cess should be examined. An audit is a versatile tool by means of which
an organization can be monitored and controlled. It enables a compre-
hensive, multidimensional diagnosis of internal communication includ-
ing, in particular, identifying the communication needs of employees,
assessing the tools used, and analysing the impact of the communication
processes in the company on staff satisfaction. The most commonly used
and best documented communication audit procedures are the following
(Potocki et al. 2011, pp. 241–242):

• ICA (International Communication Association Communication

Audit)—a standard developed by the International Communication
Association;
• LTT (Liiketaloustieteellisen Tutkimuslaitoksen Communication
Audit Procedure)—a procedure developed by the Helsinki Research
Institute for Business Economics
• OCD (Organizational Communication Development)—a standard
developed by Osmo A. Wiio, a co-author of the LTT procedure.

In order to obtain reliable results, a communication audit should take

into account a range of conditions and characteristics regarding the organi-
zation in which the study is conducted. All the procedures listed above help
produce a reliable diagnosis of communication in an enterprise. However,
there are a number of other methods which can be used to supplement an
audit of communication within a company, some of the most interesting
of which are listed below (see Czekaj and Ziębicki 2006, pp. 123–124;
Potocki 2001, pp. 117–123; Tourish and Hargie 2000, pp. 300–301):

• ECCO (Episodic Communication Channels in Organizations) analy-

sis, which involves mapping and examining communication networks,
the length of time messages take to circulate, the media usage for these
168 Communication in Organizational Environments

messages, as well as the extent to which messages are repeated or dis-

torted during the process;
• a comprehensive information system inventory, which focuses on
identifying and evaluating the sets of information functioning in an
organization, which helps to eliminate information gaps and rational-
ize communication channels;
• a functional analysis of an information system, which involves analys-
ing and designing an integrated information system, as well as prepar-
ing a strategy for the technical and organizational development of an
information system;
• an analysis of the routes of information flow, which helps to rationalize
the intra-organizational relationships in the communication system;
• an analysis of information streams, which helps to determine the oper-
ating minimum in terms of information;
• a communication structure analysis (CSA), which helps to implement
technical and organizational changes in the communication system;
• a communication system analysis, which is based on the assumption
that the quality and flow of information in a company are influenced
by problems in its functioning; this helps to optimize communication
links and information processes;
• an information and communication value analysis, which helps to
examine and evaluate the structure and malfunctions of information
and communication flows;
• a matrix description, which involves analysing and assessing the advis-
ability of transforming information and information links, leading to
rationalizing the links and implementing a transformation of informa-
tion and communication.

The supplementary methods listed above focus primarily on investigat-

ing formal means of organizational communication. However, an impor-
tant role in the internal flow of information is played by unstructured
channels. Informal communication within an organization as well as the
effectiveness of the entire process can be measured by means of an audit
which incorporates social network analysis (SNA). For the purposes of this
analysis, a specific research perspective is adopted, the primary focus of
which is not on individual units or large structures, but on the relationships
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 169

that occur between individuals, groups, and institutions. Such analysis is

conducted on three levels (see Stępka and Subda 2009): macro—that is,
the entire network; meso—that is, individual parts of an organization; and
micro—that is, specific nodes in the network. In social network analysis it
is assumed that the relationships occurring between members of an organi-
zation affect the communication within it. A reconstruction and compre-
hensive analysis of the network of relationships between employees helps to
identify the roles that individuals play in the communication process (e.g.
the initiators of communication, or leaders and brokers of information),
the periphery of the network, as well as communication gaps.
As the discussion above shows, organizations have a range of tools at their
disposal for measuring the communication processes. However, there are a
number of obstacles which may hinder conducting an effective analysis of
internal communication. These include the following (Quirke 2011, p. 365):

• not measuring at all, or too infrequently;

• measuring the efficiency of the instruments used rather than the effec-
tiveness of the process;
• not using feedback to change the attitudes and behaviour of employees
with regard to communication;
• measuring only a part of the process;
• not using the measurement to drive improvement in organizational
communication;
• not connecting measurement to outcomes which benefit the business.

In order to be successful, an audit must be carefully planned. It is

necessary to determine the areas to be examined and define the expected
results. The employees who participate in the audit should be guaranteed
confidentiality so that they are not afraid to share their views on the
communication process in their companies. The essential preconditions
for the success of the whole project are support from the management,
a guarantee of publicizing the findings (without disclosing the personal
details of the respondents), and using the results of the audit for making
changes in the organization. C.W. Downs also emphasizes the profession-
alism of the auditor, producing a reliable diagnosis based on specific stan-
dards of communication audits, making an accurate assessment of the
170 Communication in Organizational Environments

situation employing individually designed procedures to suit the needs

of each organization, having the authority to implement the improve-
ments suggested in the audit, and ensuring regularity of audits (as cited
in Henderson 2005, p. 289).
Communication audits cannot follow a fully standardized procedure,
universal for all organizations. It is therefore always necessary to adjust
them to the needs of each individual organization. However, some general
auditing guidelines have been formulated by D. Tourish and O. Hargie
(Tourish and Hargie 2000, p. 27):

• determining the areas to be audited, that is, the scope of the audit;
• determining the expected outcomes;
• collecting data to discover to what extent specific standards are met
and where discrepancies occur;
• defining and implementing appropriate changes;
• collecting data again to assess the effects of implemented changes.

The above guidelines are universal and can be successfully used in a

variety of organizations.
The productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of internal communica-
tion are not only connected with the proper selection of tools and the
communication skills of the participants. It is crucial to constantly moni-
tor the processes, assess the information needs of employees, and seek
solutions to the problems which emerge within internal communication.
Regular communication audits, followed by a comprehensive analysis of
the results and the implementation of the proposed improvements, trans-
late into improved internal communication.

5.4 A Model of Interdependence Between

the Conditions of Internal
Communication and Its Effectiveness
As mentioned earlier, the authors decided to assess the effectiveness of
internal communication in relation to the degree to which it achieves its
objectives. In the course of qualitative research it was confirmed that in
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 171

order to state that organizational communication is effective or ineffective,

it is not enough to compare the messages sent and those received. Also,
the existence of feedback in the form of information about receiving a
message does not prove that the process is effective. Respondents from all
the groups were asked to say how they understood effectiveness regarding
internal communications. Table  5.1 presents the opinions on this issue
expressed by the participants of focus groups. In their statements, the fol-
lowing aspects were most frequently emphasized:

• the speed of information flow;

• accuracy and reliability of information;
• providing employees with an adequate amount of information;
• precisely defining areas of responsibility and communication routes;
• checking that a message has been understood;
• obtaining feedback on actions that were undertaken or failed to be
undertaken;
• adjusting the information transmitted to the communicative needs of
the recipients;
• achieving the goal of communication, that is obtaining the desired
outcome;
• helping to improve work and solve the problems that appear in the
organization.

People in managerial positions stated that in order for internal com-

munication to be effective it is crucial to achieve the desired result, namely
the purpose for which an act of communication was initiated. Many
respondents from the middle- and high-level focus groups also stressed
the need to receive feedback from the recipient of a message relating to the
actions taken by them. On the other hand, in the opinion of rank-and-
file employees the most important factors are ensuring access to accurate
and reliable information, conveying information in a clear manner, as well
as precisely defining communication routes and responsibilities. As the
quoted opinions clearly show, superiors and subordinates formulate differ-
ent but not mutually exclusive requirements in terms of the effectiveness
of communication. All the indicated aspects help to increase the extent to
which the objectives of internal communication are achieved.
Table 5.1 Selected opinions of focus group participants on their understanding of internal communication effectiveness
Level in
organizational
hierarchy Respondents’ opinions
Low “That it should not be false (…), not to create mythical, fictitious communication, but it should be real…”
“That a manager should be able to face the people and give them the facts (…)”
“That the flow of information is good. That everybody has enough knowledge”
“That people are open to one another and say what the matter is. And not to keep the information to themselves (…)”
“It also means precisely specifying an employee’s duties (…) And I know that if I go to Ola, she will give me
concrete information, because this is her job. And I expect her to give me this information”
“When it is fast and reliable, when the receiver understands”
“(…) give it in a way so as to get the point across, not just—I gave you the information but whether or not you
understood it is not my problem”
“It is when all this is well-organized”
“Access to information (…), somebody should know we are running out of a component and inform the person
responsible for ordering it”
“(…) the speed of receiving information and its quality”
Middle “(…) if there is feedback, eg I did it, I didn’t do it”
“(…) it does not matter whether an issue has been settled or not. Because there could be information for me
about the company’s perspectives, I received it and found that my actions will not make anything better, but I
received the information and acquainted myself with it”
“Certainty that what I said was correctly understood, correctly received. For example, I will not have to keep asking
if a task has been done (…) if I conveyed a message, it was correctly received and the task has been done”
“Now, from a supervisor’s point of view, for me it is a kind of discomfort that it is not enough to say something
once but you have to do 3 things. Ask if it has been understood and then ask if it has been done”
“When the recipient, I don’t know, did what the speaker told them. I don’t know how to put it nicely”
“Appropriateness of a claim, if I have a problem with transport I will not see Paweł about it because it does not
concern him. There must be something concrete”
“First of all everybody has to know where to send particular information. So that it is not like now, when
somebody gets some information and says ‘It’s not my job to deal with this’ ”
“How it influences solving a problem, settling an issue, so that the matter is sorted out”
(continued)
Table 5.1 (continued)

High “The message must be effective, that is, achieve exactly the effect that was intended”
“A fast flow of (…) well-thought-out information. I think that the accuracy of this information will be
important”
“If a given problem is solved”
“Effective means that it improves my work for the company. The kind that makes things easier and not more
complicated”
“It must be sort of addressed to a specific person. Generally, the effect should be that it should make work
easier (…)”
“I often expect this kind of feedback, that the information has been received and the job has been done, it is
done and can be checked off (…)”
Source: Own compilation based on qualitative research
174 Communication in Organizational Environments

The participants of focus groups were also asked for their opinions about
the factors that influence the effectiveness of communication processes in
the workplace. The first associations of the employees surveyed, regardless
of the management level represented, related to personality and character.
They emphasized that the kind of person somebody is plays a key role in
general as well as in internal communication. According to the employ-
ees interviewed, specific characteristics of a person such as introversion or
extraversion, the propensity for cooperation or confrontation, the level of
education, and openness to colleagues very strongly influence the effective-
ness of communication activities. Moreover, the respondents pointed to
the importance of interpersonal relations, in particular kindness, respect,
good manners, and a history of previous shared experiences. Other deter-
minants which were regarded as essential for the effectiveness of internal
communication were those connected with the person of the manager and
their attitude to communicating with employees. Most respondents rep-
resenting a low management level emphasized that work requires coexis-
tence in a group, and that is why all the factors affecting relations between
employees are important. In addition, the participants in the interviews
indicated that the size of the company, the procedures adopted by the
enterprise, as well as the climate and organizational structure are signifi-
cant factors. Other issues which were considered important included the
approach to work, stressful situations, tools and systems, as well as time.
Table 5.2 presents selected opinions of focus group participants about the
effects of the analysed factors on organizational communication.
On the basis of the interview excerpts quoted, it was possible to diag-
nose specific areas (factors) that the respondents regarded as particularly
important for a proper communication process within a company. Based
on the data included in the table above, a diagram was created which
illustrates the factors that, in the opinions of the focus group participants,
determine the effectiveness of internal communication (Fig. 5.1).
All the determinants were assigned to one of four groups: orga-
nization, group, individual, or factors connected with the message.2
2
When analysing the statements of the focus group participants, the researchers decided to intro-
duce a fourth group of determinants, related to the characteristics of messages. This was because the
respondents frequently commented on the contents which are transmitted to them within com-
munication activities.
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 175

Table 5.2 Factors influencing the effectiveness of internal communication accord-

ing to focus group interviews’ participants
Management Major areas
level Respondents’ opinions indicated
Low level “The character of a person. Some people Personality
are on a different wavelength. I say A Character
and they hear B” Age
“(…) it is easier to pass information to a Human relations
friend that to a stranger (…)” Harmony
“Personality. Not everybody likes to Rank
cooperate with one another (…)” Person of
“(…) probably everything depends on manager
openness (…)” Corporate climate
“Everybody is different and (…) we form a Procedures
group, but each person contributes Size of company
something to it, and it is the qualities of Technical factors
each of these people that matter”
“(…) factors connected with a group. As a
group, we have some established
behaviours, patterns, and probably even
some jargon”
“We work in a group so the behaviour of
the group is more important than the
behaviour of an individual. Besides, an
individual does not have so much
influence as a group”
“The characteristics of a given manager
(…)”
“(…) the attitude of the boss (…)”
“(…) it depends both on the specific
features of the company and on how big
the business is (…)”
(continued)
176 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 5.2 (continued)

Management Major areas

level Respondents’ opinions indicated
Middle level “(…) knowing a given person (…)” Personality
“(…) the education of a person (…)” Manners
“(…) some events from the past which tell Kindness
us something about that person (…)” Clarity of
“(…) good contact between the supervisor communication
and others (…)” Willingness to
“(…) the influence of the management cooperate
(…)” Respect for other
“(…) the structure imposes certain (…) people
directions of communication (…)” Good relations
“(…) that a manager should also treat between
workers like human beings (…)” co-workers
“(…) mostly such personal factors. And the Direct contact
first impression means a lot (…)” Knowledge
“To an older person you talk differently Decision-making
and to a younger one also differently structure
(…)”
“Gender. Because women (…) take a
personal view of everything and
sometimes don’t let you get a word in
edgeways to understand an idea but
they still stick to their guns (…)”
“(…) the character of a person (…)”
“(…) people must want to listen in order
to be effectively reached by
communication (…)”
“(…) similarity of characters (…)”
(continued)
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 177

Table 5.2 (continued)

Management Major areas

level Respondents’ opinions indicated
High level “(…) being knowledgeable about a topic Personality
(…)” Human factor
“(…) direct relations. The ability to express Relationships
what a person wants to say (…)” Focus on
“(…) it is also important, for example, how communication
the manager approaches communication Attitude to work
(…)” Stressful situations
“(…) first and foremost there are people Tools and systems
(…)” Time
“(…) division of responsibilities is
important. Who is responsible for what,
and what decisions they are able to make
because sometimes this is problematic
(…)”
“(…) we function in a company, which after
all consists of people in the same way that
it consists of some structures (…)”
“(…) interpersonal qualities (…)”
Source: Own compilation based on focused interviews

Respect for other Human Focus on

people relaons communicaon

Knowledge Manager and

their traits
Harmony
GROUP
Willingness to
Kindness cooperate

Decision-making Tools and Corporate

Personality Character Age structure systems climate

EFFECTIVENESS OF
INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION
COMMUNICATION
Manners Atude to Stress Procedures Technical Size of the
work factors company

Time (meliness) MESSAGE Direct contact

Clarity of
communicaon

Fig. 5.1 Factors determining the effectiveness of internal communication

according to focus group participants
(Source: Own compilation based on focused interviews)
178 Communication in Organizational Environments

According to the respondents, devoting attention to each of the indi-

cated areas, including their individual components, contributes to the
effectiveness of internal communication.
The results obtained from quantitative research were analysed from
the point of view of the relationships between particular aspects of inter-
nal communication and its effectiveness. In accordance with the inte-
grated approach to the effectiveness of communication activities within
a company, it was assumed that it would also be necessary to define their
efficiency and quality. The category of efficiency includes: access to infor-
mation, speed of information flow, the amount of information received
compared to the information needed, the reliability and completeness
of information obtained, as well as adjusting the communication activi-
ties to employees’ needs and the atmosphere of communication. Among
the aspects determining the quality, the following were indicated: com-
municativeness of superiors, communicativeness of subordinates, the
organizational structure, corporate culture, and relationships among
employees. The effectiveness of internal communication results from the
degree of achieving the following objectives:

• supplying employees with up-to-date information, essential for their

proper functioning in the company;
• motivating employees to work for the benefit of the organization;
• creating a positive atmosphere in the workplace;
• unifying workers around the company’s mission, values and strategy;
• building a positive image of the company among its employees;
• preparing workers for upcoming changes.

In the course of the analyses the authors decided to test the efficiency
level of internal communication. Also checked was whether any of the
studied areas predominantly contributes to general communication effi-
ciency. To achieve this aim, an analysis of Pearson’s r correlation between
the assessments of particular aspects of communication within the orga-
nization and the efficiency obtained was conducted (see Table 5.3).
All the results achieved prove the existence of statistically valid, strong
relationships between particular aspects of communication as well as the
efficiency of communication in an organization. The highest correlation
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 179

Table 5.3 Pearson’s r correlation coefficients between different categories of effi-

ciency and overall efficiency assessment
Overall efficiency
Relationship- Task-
Category of efficiency Total Balanced oriented oriented
Access to information .784** .806** .714** .791**
Speed of information .811** .810** .779** .829**
flow
Amount of information .825** .825** .820** .827**
received compared to
the information
needed
Reliability and .783** .799** .771** .779**
completeness of
information obtained
Adjustment of the .775** .788** .691** .803**
communication
activities to the
employees’ needs
Atmosphere of .756** .761** .834** .714**
communication
Source: Own research
**Significance level α = 0.01 (two-tailed)

coefficients were obtained for the amount of information received in rela-

tion to the information needed (r = 0.825), as well as for the speed of the
information flow (r = 0.811), whereas the lowest coefficients reflected
the communication atmosphere (r = 0.756). The influence of the indi-
vidual aspects was also analysed within the defined segments. It turned
out, however, that regardless of the segments to which the respondents
belonged, the results were very similar.
The next step was to verify whether there is a statistically valid inter-
dependence between the efficiency and the effectiveness of internal com-
munication. The following were taken into account: individual aspects of
efficiency, the mean of the overall efficiency, the arithmetic mean, and the
weighted average of effectiveness (see Table 5.4).
The analysis conducted of Pearson’s r correlation proved that the cat-
egories of efficiency and effectiveness are interrelated. The correlation
coefficients are presented in the table. There is a clear correlation between
180 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 5.4 Pearson’s r correlation coefficients between different categories of effi-

ciency, overall efficiency, arithmetic mean, and the weighted average of internal
communication effectiveness
Arithmetic mean Weighted average
of internal of internal
communication communication
Category of efficiency effectiveness effectiveness
Access to information 0.390** 0.392**
Speed of information 0.402** 0.398**
flow
Amount of 0.413** 0.414**
information received
compared to the
information needed
Reliability and 0.395** 0.388**
completeness of
information obtained
Adjusting 0.374** 0.380**
communication
activities to
employees’ needs
Atmosphere of 0.424** 0.414**
communication
Overall efficiency 0.504** 0.507**
assessment
Source: Own research
**Significance level α = 0.01 (two-tailed)

access to information, reliability and completeness of the received mes-

sages, and adjusting communication activities to employees’ needs, on the
one hand, and the effectiveness of internal communication, on the other.
The strongest relationship occurred between the average assessment of
efficiency and the weighted average of the effectiveness of internal com-
munication (r = 0.507). The results obtained justify the conclusion that
the categories of efficiency and effectiveness of communication in a com-
pany are correlated in such a way that the higher the efficiency, the higher
the effectiveness of the communication process.
The integrated approach to the assessment of internal communication
also requires taking into consideration its quality. The respondents regard
the communicative abilities of employees as the most important fac-
tor for communication in a company. Factors occupying the next three
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 181

places in the ranking are the communicative abilities of superiors (second

place), the organizational structure (third place), as well as the corporate
culture and organizational climate, all of which scored a similar number
of points. The next step was to find out how the internal communication
level is assessed in companies. The most highly evaluated factor was the
one assessed as the least important by respondents, that is, relationships
among employees (average value 3.64). The factor which was most sig-
nificant in the respondents’ opinion, the communicative abilities of the
subordinates, was also highly evaluated (3.60). The lowest position in the
respondents’ view was occupied by the organizational structure (average
value 3.32).
This subsection rests on the assumption that the categories of the effec-
tiveness, efficiency, and quality of internal communication are correlated
and interact with each other. Therefore, it was necessary to check if there
was any statistically valid interdependence between individual variables. To
begin with, an attempt to verify the following hypothesis was undertaken:

H1:

The effectiveness of internal communication is positively correlated with

the quality of the communicative activities directed towards employees.
Consequently, with a view to verifying this hypothesis, an analysis of
Pearson’s r correlation was conducted between the assessed effectiveness
of internal communication and the assessed quality of the communica-
tive activities directed towards employees. In addition, the achievements
of particular objectives of internal communication were analysed (see
Table 5.5).
The analysis of the correlations showed that the respondents who
evaluated the quality of internal communication more highly, also had
higher opinions about the degree of implementation of its individual
objectives. In each of the areas researched, the correlation coefficients
fluctuated between r = 0.36 and r = 0.45. The coefficient value of the cor-
relation between the assessed quality and effectiveness was the highest for
the objective of providing the employees with information indispensable
for their functioning in the company. The lowest value of the coefficient
was for the objectives of unifying employees around the mission, value,
182 Communication in Organizational Environments

and strategy of the company, as well as for preparing staff for upcoming
changes. It was also observed that there is a statistically significant mod-
erate interdependence between the general assessment of the quality of
internal communication and its effectiveness (r = 0.43). Therefore, it was
decided that Hypothesis 1 could be accepted.
Furthermore, in order to obtain a full view of the correlations that
exist, a check was done as to whether there were any statistically sig-
nificant correlations between particular categories in the assessment of
communication within an organization, that is, its efficiency, quality, and
effectiveness. As a result, statistically significant moderate correlations
were observed between these categories (see Table 5.6).
The highest correlation coefficient values are for the categories of effi-
ciency and quality of communication (in the case of the arithmetic mean
for the quality assessment r = 0.613, based on the weighted average r =
0.637). Moreover, moderately strong correlations were observed between
the effectiveness of communication activities in an organization and the
quality and the efficiency in the researched area.

Table 5.5 Pearson’s r correlation coefficients between the assessment of the

degree of achievement regarding internal communication objectives, the arith-
metic mean of internal communication effectiveness, and the assessment of over-
all communication quality
Assessment of the degree of achievement
regarding internal communication Pearson’s r Significance
objectives coefficient level
Supplying employees with the up-to-date 0.45 <0.001
information essential for their proper
functioning in the company
Motivating employees to work for the 0.43 <0.001
benefit of the organization
Creating a positive atmosphere in the 0.42 <0.001
workplace
Unifying workers around the company’s 0.36 <0.001
mission, values, and strategy
Building a positive image of the company 0.43 <0.001
among its employees
Preparing workers for upcoming changes 0.36 <0.001
Arithmetic mean for internal 0.43 <0.001
communication effectiveness
Source: Own research
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 183

Table 5.6 Pearson’s r correlation coefficients between the means of internal com-
munication efficiency, quality, and effectiveness
AM AM WA WA AM
Variables efficiency quality quality effectiveness effectiveness
AM efficiency 1 0.613** 0.637** 0.434** 0.431**
AM quality 0.613** 1 0.613** 0.486** 0.481**
WA quality 0.637** 0.613** 1 0.434** 0.431**
WA 0.434** 0.486** 0.434** 1 0.982**
effectiveness
AM 0.431** 0.481** 0.431** 0.982** 1
effectiveness
Source: Own research
AM arithmetic mean, WM weighted mean
**Significance level α = 0.01 (two-tailed)

All the conducted analyses led to obtaining data which was used to con-
struct a model of interdependence between the determinants of internal
communication and its effectiveness. First, however, it was necessary to
organize the knowledge relating to the approaches and assumptions of mod-
els for communication processes in organizations. This proved to be essen-
tial for the author’s stance on how organizational communication should be
treated. Thus, the following characteristics were selected from the models of
communication discussed in Chap. 1 and adapted for Rogala’s model:

• from K. Lewin’s flow of information model—the positions of the gate-

keepers, who control the flow of information and the course of
communication;
• from H.D. Lasswell’s model of persuasive communication—the result
of the process, understood as a specific purpose in the form of creating
a new attitude, or changing or strengthening an existing one;
• from C. Shannon and W. Weaver’s model of transmitting signals—the
occurrence of various kinds of noise, which may hinder or even pre-
vent the transfer of a message;
• from W.  Schramm’s model of shared experience—the concept of
shared experience, which includes attitudes, beliefs, and symbols with
which the sender and the recipient equally identify, as well as the view
that communication is a mutual sharing of experiences between
individuals;
184 Communication in Organizational Environments

• from B. Westley and M. MacLean’s model of mass communication—

the positions of gatekeepers who filter information;
• from D.K. Berlo’s SMCR communication model—the factors affect-
ing the sender and recipient of a message, in particular, communica-
tion skills and attitudes;
• from the concentric HUB model—communication as a process resem-
bling the process of sound wave propagation, this feature being used
for analysing internal communication through the use of social media.

Finally, following the approach of the Palo Alto Group, it was assumed
that communication, also internal communication, is a social process
which occurs continuously at different levels. Figure 5.2 presents Rogala’s
model of organizational communication.
The proposed model consists of the following elements:

feedback feedback
E

Shared Shared F
area of area of
experience experience E

noise noise
message message message
sending receiving/sending receiving

Fig. 5.2 A model of communication within an organization

(Source: Rogala 2013, adapted from: Rogala et al. (2015))
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 185

• the sender of a message, whose personality, experience, and level of

communication skills have a significant impact on the manner of for-
mulating the message and the course of a communicative event;
• the gatekeeper, that is, the person who controls the flow of informa-
tion and the course of communication, so this is a position of consid-
erable power. The gatekeeper can, but does not necessarily have to,
participate in communication. This role is most commonly fulfilled by
superiors as well as brokers and leaders of information;
• the receiver of a message, whose personality, previous experience, and
level of communication skills determine communication behaviours
and the reception of the message;
• a shared area of experience between the sender and the gatekeeper, the
gatekeeper and the recipient, or the sender and the recipient: as mani-
festing similar attitudes and views with which both sides of the process
equally identify facilitates communication. Communication processes
involve not only conveying information but also sharing experiences;
• the message, that is, information transferred in a written, oral, or non-
verbal form, which should be transmitted so that the recipient can receive
it in a way that is as close as possible to the intentions of the sender;
• interference, that is, various types of noise, barriers, or obstacles which
cause information to be incomplete, delayed, or distorted;
• feedback, that is, the reaction of the recipient to the decoded message from
the sender, which makes it possible to check whether the message has been
correctly received and understood. It is worth noting that feedback does
not necessarily have to take the form of verbal or written confirmation;
• the effect, understood as a definite purpose for which communication
was initiated, in the form of undertaking or abandoning a specific action,
creating a new attitude, or changing or strengthening an existing one.

In this study, the effectiveness of communication processes within an

organization is consistently identified with the implementation of spe-
cific objectives. Thus, the most important change introduced into a dis-
cussion of these processes is the category of effect, which is the outcome
expected by the sender of a message.
The in-depth analysis of internal communication in a company, its
determinants as well as the factors increasing or decreasing the degree to
186 Communication in Organizational Environments

which its objectives are met, enabled the creation of a correlation model
between the effectiveness of internal communication and its determi-
nants. The statistical analysis of the results of the survey and the qualita-
tive analysis of the focus group interviews were a basis for preparing a
list of areas influencing the proper course of communication activities
in a company. The dependent variable in this model is the effectiveness
of internal communication understood as the achievement of its objec-
tives. This effectiveness can be full or partial. Activities undertaken for the
sake of facilitating communication in a company can also produce results
opposite to the expected ones—this is the so-called counter-effective-
ness syndrome. The overall assessment of effectiveness (expressed as the
arithmetic or weighted mean) comprises the degree of accomplishment of
the partial objectives of internal communication (independent variable),
although it is acceptable to assign each objective a separate weight. The
following objectives were considered: informational, motivational, work-
place atmosphere, integrational, internal image, and upcoming changes.
Other independent variables are the categories of efficiency and quality,
which comprise sets of specific factors (see Fig. 5.3).

EFFECTIVENESS
- informave objecve
- movaonal objecve
- workplace atmosphere objecve
- integraonal objecve
- internal image objecve
QUALITY - upcoming changes objecve

- the communicave abilies of

subordinates
- employees’ personality
- communicave abilies of superiors
- employees’ individual experience
- management style
EFFICIENCY - the organizaonal structure
- the culture and the climate of an
- access to informaon organizaon
- speed of informaon flow - conflicts
- amount of informaon received
relave to the informaon needed
- reliability and completeness of
messages
- adjusng communicaon acvies
to the employees’ needs
- communicaon atmosphere
- the use of instruments
- barriers

Fig. 5.3 Model of relationships between internal communication determi-

nants and its effectiveness
(Source: Rogala 2013)
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 187

As far as efficiency is concerned, the following constituents are taken

into account:

• access to information,
• speed of information flow,
• amount of information received relative to the information needed,
• reliability and completeness of messages
• adjusting communication activities to the employees’ needs,
• communication atmosphere,
• the use of instruments,
• barriers.

The general assessment of the quality of communication is determined

by the following factors:

• the communicative abilities of subordinates,

• employees’ personality,
• communicative abilities of superiors,
• employees’ individual experiences,
• management style,
• the organizational structure,
• the culture and the climate of an organization,
• conflicts.

The model created illustrates the correlations between the various

aspects of internal communication management and those factors deter-
mining the effectiveness of the activities undertaken. What is more, it
shows areas requiring special attention by the people planning commu-
nication strategies and implementing communication solutions in orga-
nizations. In the authors’ opinion, the categories of efficiency and quality
determine the category of the effectiveness of internal communication.
Therefore, in order to achieve a high level of effectiveness it is vital to
obtain satisfactory results in both of these areas.
In the light of the above analysis it can be concluded that a high level
of achievement for communication objectives in an organization requires
an integrated approach. The results obtained justify the statement that
188 Communication in Organizational Environments

the categories of effectiveness and efficiency of internal communication

are interrelated. A relationship that seems to be of particular significance
is the higher the efficiency, the higher the effectiveness of the process
(r = 0.43; p < 0.01). The analysis of the correlation between efficiency and
quality of internal communication proved the existence of a statistically
significant, moderately strong correlation between the general assessment
of internal communication quality and its efficiency (r = 0.43; p < 0.01).
Additionally, it was observed that the categories of effectiveness and qual-
ity are also interrelated (the results being statistically significant).

5.5 The Assumptions of an Integrated Index

for the Assessment of Internal
Communication Effectiveness
As mentioned earlier, the communication processes in an organization
should not be equated exclusively with the transmission of information
to the recipients. In view of the broad area of impact, the effectiveness
of internal communication ought to be approached in a comprehensive
manner. Rogala proposes that effectiveness should be measured for each
of the objectives of communication, using both quantitative and quali-
tative methods. It is necessary for the people managing the process to
define a satisfactory degree for the achievement of each individual objec-
tive. Then each objective is assigned a weight related to the interests of
the organization and the needs and expectations of its employees. In the
next stage, the degree to which communicative objectives are achieved is
examined.
The list below contains specific assumptions for the construction of an
index of satisfaction regarding the effectiveness of internal communica-
tion (see Table 5.7):

• identifying the communication objectives which are relevant for the

functioning of the organization through analysing literature sources;
• having the surveyed employees assign weights to individual objectives
(quantitative research). It should be noted that the weight of the
Table 5.7 The instrument used for constructing a standardized index of satisfaction with the achievement of internal com-
munication objectives
A B C D E F G H
5

Benchmark Actual values

Standardized Standardized
Level of Index of index of Level of Index of index of
Weight satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction
Criteria 0–10 points 0–10 points B×C (D/∑D) × 100% 0–10 points B×F (G/∑D) × 100%

Total – – 100 %
Literature Quantitative Values set by Calculations Quantitative Calculations
studies research people research
responsible for
communication
Source: Own compilation based on Mann and TÖpfer (1996)
Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness
189
190 Communication in Organizational Environments

individual factors may change over time. Thus, if the studies are
repeated in the future, this should be taken into account when select-
ing research tools and calculating the index;
• determining the benchmark (column C) and calculating the satisfac-
tion index (columns D and E). This step is a reflection of the compa-
ny’s policy because the reference level is set as optimal from the point
of view of the organization, although it may not necessarily be the
maximum level of satisfaction with the achievement of internal com-
munication objectives. The values obtained at this stage will be com-
pared with the assessments given by respondents;
• determining the level of satisfaction with internal communication in
the context of its objectives (column F). Based on the results of quan-
titative research, mean values for the level of satisfaction with the
implementation of specific objectives of internal communication are
obtained. If the actual level of satisfaction with achieving a given
objective is higher than expected, further calculations take into account
the assumed rather than the actual value. In this way, the index of sat-
isfaction is not artificially inflated;
• calculating the index of satisfaction with the achievement of internal
communication objectives in a company (columns G and H). The
sum in column H indicates the level of satisfaction among employees
relative to the level expected;
• presenting and interpreting results. The higher the actual index of sat-
isfaction is, the closer the satisfaction of employees with the imple-
mentation of internal communication objectives is to the optimum
level in the specific circumstances. The interpretation concerns not
only the end results, but also their components. The individual items
in the last column reflect the level of satisfaction with the achievement
of specific objectives and indicate what should be improved.

This method of measurement makes it possible to create a fairly com-

prehensive picture of the effectiveness of internal communication, which
is important from the point of view of both ordinary employees as well as
those responsible for communication in companies.
The integrated approach to the assessment of internal communication
processes which has been proposed in this section assumes taking into
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 191

account the categories of productivity, efficiency, quality, and effectiveness.

Due to limited capacity as well as the difficulty in determining the true
level of the productivity of communication activities, it seems acceptable
to evaluate only the other three components. It was assumed that both
an organization and its members strive to achieve the optimum level of
satisfaction, also in the area of internal communication. Referring to the
available literature sources concerning satisfaction surveys, Rogala decided
to adapt a standardized customer satisfaction index for the needs of this
analysis (Nestorowicz 2003).
The overview of the index of satisfaction with the effectiveness of inter-
nal communication contains detailed assumptions underlying its con-
struction. It does not specify, however, what areas should be subjected to
measurement, as these were to be identified in the course of the study.
The model of interdependencies between the determinants of internal
communication and its effectiveness, created on the basis of the results
of the measurements conducted, made it possible to specify the com-
ponents for measuring an integrated index of internal communication
assessment; that is, the efficiency, quality, and effectiveness indicators.
Table 5.8 presents the measuring instrument used for this purpose.
In the first stage, the objectives and the areas of particular importance
for the efficiency and quality of communication were identified. As part
of the survey, the respondents assigned weights to the individual con-
stituents in each category,3 and those responsible for communication in
the analysed enterprises defined the benchmark levels. As a “good” mark
was considered to be sufficient a value of 4 was adopted for further cal-
culations. In the next step, satisfaction with the efficiency, quality and
effectiveness of internal communication was determined, referring to
the individual components of each category. Next, mean values for the
assessment of respondent’s satisfaction with specific aspects, which were
obtained in the course of quantitative research, were added. If the actual
level of satisfaction with achieving a given objective was higher than
expected, further calculations took into account the assumed rather than
3
The category of efficiency was an exception. In this case, the hierarchy was constructed based on
an analysis of correlation coefficients between individual components and the effectiveness of inter-
nal communication. The higher the value of the coefficient was, the higher this aspect was placed
in the hierarchy.
Table 5.8 Measuring instrument for the integrated index of internal communication assessment
A B C D E F G H
Benchmark Actual values
Standardized Standardized
Level of Index of index of Level of Index of index of
Objectives Weight satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction
1–6 points 1–5 points B×C (D/∑D) × 100 % 1–5 points B×F (G/∑D) × 100 %
Efficiency Communication 6
atmosphere
Amount of 5
information
received relative to
the information
needed
Speed of information 4
flow
Reliability and 3
completeness of
information
Access to information 2
Adjusting 1
communication
activities to
employees’ needs
1–5 points 1–5 points B×C (D/∑D) × 100 % 1–5 points B×F (G/∑D) × 100 %

(continued)
Quality Communicative 5  
abilities of
employees
Communicative 4
abilities of superiors
Organizational 3
structure
Organizational 2
culture and climate
Relations between 1
employees
1–6 points 1–5 points B×C (D/∑D) × 100 % 1–5 points B×F (G/∑D) × 100 %

(continued)
Table 5.8 (continued)

Effectiveness Providing employees 6

with the up-to-date
information necessary
for their proper
functioning in the
organization
Uniting employees 5
around the mission,
values, and strategy
of the organization
Motivating employees 4
to work for the
benefit of the
company
Creating a positive 3
atmosphere in the
workplace
Building a positive 2
internal image of the
company
Preparing employees 1
for upcoming changes
Total – – 100% –
Literature studies Quantitative Values set by Calculations Quantitative Calculations
research people research
responsible for
communication
Source: Own compilation based on research and Mann and Töpfer (1996)
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 195

the actual value. In this way, the index of satisfaction was not artificially
inflated. The last step consisted of calculating the indexes of satisfaction
with the efficiency, quality, and effectiveness of internal communication.
The result of these operations was a comprehensive picture of satisfaction
with communication activities conducted in the organizations.
Table 5.9 presents detailed calculations based on the survey results. For
all the analysed components, the optimal and actual indexes of satisfac-
tion were determined. Column I shows differences between the assumed
and actual levels of satisfaction. The greatest differences were noted in the
following areas:

• uniting employees around the mission, values, and strategy of the

organization (5.77%),
• communication atmosphere (4.93%),
• providing employees with the up-to-date information necessary for
their proper functioning in the organization (4.86%),
• amount of information received relative to the information needed
(4.58%),
• communicative abilities of superiors (4.53%),
• motivating employees to work for the benefit of the company (4.52%).

Particular attention should be paid to the aspects which respondents

regarded as the most important and for which the most significant dis-
crepancies were observed, namely, conveying the necessary information
to employees; uniting them around the mission, values, and strategy
(respectively the first and second most important objective of internal
communication); and the communication atmosphere.
Within the category of efficiency, a relatively low value in the satisfaction
index was also recorded for the amount of information received in relation
to the information needed. In turn, in the category of quality, the greatest
discrepancy between the optimal and actual satisfaction indexes occurred
with regard to the communication skills of superiors (difference at a level
of 4.53), and the smallest for relationships between employees (0.63%).
To better illustrate which components in the integrated index of inter-
nal communication assessment the respondents are the most and the least
satisfied with, Rogala decided to calculate the degree of dissatisfaction
Table 5.9 Integrated index of internal communication assessment
A B C D E F G H I
Benchmark Actual values
Standardized Standardized
Level of Index of index of Level of Index of index of
Objectives Weight satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction Difference
1–6 points 1–5 points B×C (D/∑D) × 100% 1–5 points B×F (G/∑D) × 100% E–H
Efficiency Communication 6 4 24 28.57% 3.31 19.86 23.64% 4.93%
atmosphere
Amount of 5 4 20 23.81% 3.23 16.15 19.23% 4.58%
information
received relative
to the
information
needed
Speed of 4 4 16 19.05% 3.2 12.8 15.24% 3.81%
information flow
Reliability and 3 4 12 14.29% 3.35 10.05 11.96% 2.32%
completeness of
information
Access to 2 4 8 9.52% 3.33 6.66 7.93% 1.60%
information
Adjusting 1 4 4 4.76% 3.18 3.18 3.79% 0.98%
communication
activities to
employees’ needs
Total – 24 84 100.00% 68.70 81.79% 18.21%
1–5 points 1–5 points B×C (D/∑D) × 100% 1–5 points B×F (G/∑D) × 100%

(continued)
Quality Communicative 5 4 20 33.33% 3.6 18 30.00% 3.33%  
abilities of
employees
Communicative 4 4 16 26.67% 3.32 13.28 22.13% 4.53%
abilities of
superiors
Organizational 3 4 12 20.00% 3.23 9.69 16.15% 3.85%
structure
Organizational 2 4 8 13.33% 3.32 6.64 11.07% 2.27%
culture and
climate
Relations between 1 4 4 6.67% 3.64 3.64 6.07% 0.60%
employees
Total – 20 60 100.00% 51.25 85.42% 14.58%
1–6 points 1–5 points B×C (D/∑D) × 100 % 1–5 points B×F (G/∑D) × 100%

(continued)
Table 5.9 (continued)

Effectiveness Providing 6 4 24 28.57% 3.32 19.92 23.71% 4.86%

employees with
the up-to-date
information
necessary for
their proper
functioning in the
organization
Uniting employees 5 4 20 23.81% 3.03 15.15 18.04% 5.77%
around the
mission, values,
and strategy of
the organization
Motivating 4 4 16 19.05% 3.05 12.2 14.52% 4.52%
employees to
work for the
benefit of the
company
Creating a positive 3 4 12 14.29% 3.23 9.69 11.54% 2.75%
atmosphere in
the workplace
Building a positive 2 4 8 9.52% 3.2 6.4 7.62% 1.90%
internal image of
the company
Preparing 1 4 4 4.76% 3.23 3.23 3.85% 0.92%
employees for
upcoming
changes
Total – 24 84 100.00% 66.59 79.27% 20.73%
Values of the integrated index of satisfaction (arithmetic mean of all the categories) 82.16% 17.84%
Source: Own compilation based on survey results
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 199

with each of them. This was done by calculating the difference between
the expected and actual index as a percentage of the optimum index of
satisfaction. The values obtained are presented in Table 5.10.
The above findings confirm that the respondents are definitely the least
satisfied with implementing the objectives of internal communication
relating to uniting employees around the mission, values, and strategy of
the organization (the degree of dissatisfaction is 24.25%) and motivating
them to work for the benefit of the company (23.75%). Next in the rank-
ing are the speed of the information flow and building a positive internal
image (20%), which, due to the smaller weights assigned to them by
respondents, showed smaller differences in the satisfaction indices. The
situation was similar for the objective of preparing employees for upcom-
ing changes (19.25%). On the other hand, the lowest level of dissatisfac-
tion among respondents was recorded for relations between employees
(9%) and their communicative abilities (10%).
Apart from measuring satisfaction at the level of components, the inte-
grated index also allows for an analysis of the results obtained for each
category. In the enterprises surveyed, the standardized index of satisfac-
tion with the efficiency of communication stood at 81.79%, which is a
good result. In turn, satisfaction with the quality of the communication
processes within organizations amounted to 85.42%, which was the best
result among all the analysed categories. The respondents were least satis-
fied with the achievement of the objectives of internal communication.
This is evidenced by both the partial results and the standardized index of
satisfaction in this respect, which amounted to 79.27%. The arithmetic
mean calculated for all the three categories was 82.16%.
Depending on the reference levels set by the people responsible for
communication in enterprises, different values for the standardized sat-
isfaction index will signify the correctness of activities conducted in this
field. Rogala proposes adopting the following measures for assessing the
overall satisfaction with communication as well as satisfaction with each
individual category4:

4
With the reference level set at 4 for all the elements measured and with the assumption that an
average rating for the individual elements below a level of 2.0 is a cut-off point beyond which an
activity becomes counterproductive.
200 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 5.10 Ranking of the components of the integrated internal communication

assessment index according to the level of dissatisfaction
Degree of
Optimal Actual dissatisfaction
index of index of with a given
satisfaction satisfaction Difference component
Component A (%) B (%) C (%) (C/A) (%)
Uniting employees 23.81% 18.04% 5.77% 24.25%
around the
mission, values,
and strategy of the
organization
Motivating 19.05% 14.52% 4.52% 23.75%
employees to work
for the benefit of
the company
Adjusting 4.76% 3.79% 0.98% 20.50%
communication
activities to
employees’ needs
Speed of 19.05% 15.24% 3.81% 20.00%
information flow
Building a positive 9.52% 7.62% 1.90% 20.00%
internal image of
the company
Amount of 23.81% 19.23% 4.58% 19.25%
information
received relative to
the information
needed
Organizational 20.00% 16.15% 3.85% 19.25%
structure
Creating a positive 14.29% 11.54% 2.75% 19.25%
atmosphere in the
workplace
Preparing employees 4.76% 3.85% 0.92% 19.25%
for upcoming
changes
Communication 28.57% 23.64% 4.93% 17.25%
atmosphere
Providing employees 28.57% 23.71% 4.86% 17.00%
with the up-to-
date information
necessary for their
proper functioning
in the organization
(continued)
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 201

Table 5.10 (continued)

Degree of
Optimal Actual dissatisfaction
index of index of with a given
satisfaction satisfaction Difference component
Component A (%) B (%) C (%) (C/A) (%)
Communicative 26.67% 22.13% 4.53% 17.00%
abilities of
superiors
Organizational 13.33% 11.07% 2.27% 17.00%
culture and climate
Access to 9.52% 7.93% 1.60% 16.75%
information
Reliability and 14.29% 11.96% 2.32% 16.25%
completeness of
information
Communicative 33.33% 30.00% 3.33% 10.00%
abilities of
employees
Relations between 6.67% 6.07% 0.60% 9.00%
employees
Source: Own compilation based on survey results

• 88–100%—high level,
• 75–87%—moderately high level,
• 62–74%—average level,
• 51–61%—low level,
• below 50%—extremely low level, requiring instant intervention.

The values for the standardized indices of satisfaction for quality, effi-
ciency, and effectiveness, as well as for the overall assessment of internal
communication are at a moderately high level. The activities conducted
as part of internal communication in the companies surveyed are there-
fore correct, though remedial action is required to be taken with respect
to individual components of the index, for example, as regards achieving
the specific objectives of communication within organizations.
The proposed measuring instrument enables an analysis and evalua-
tion of internal communication which takes into account a number of
202 Communication in Organizational Environments

different aspects. It should be noted that the calculation method could be

modified. Instead of assigning weights to individual constituents for each
category on the basis of ranking, it is possible to use the weighted mean
values obtained from the survey (column B). As a result, if there are small
differences in the opinions of respondents regarding the significance of
specific aspects, the values of the calculated satisfaction indices will better
reflect the actual state of affairs. The present study did not use this solu-
tion since the survey questionnaire did not include a question relating to
the importance of the components of organizational communication effi-
ciency. Another possible modification is using a larger scale5 for assessing
the level of satisfaction with various aspects of communication (columns
C and F). Using a seven- or nine-point scale would make it possible to
more precisely determine the level of respondents’ satisfaction with the
overall communication and its components.
The satisfaction of employees with internal communication could also
be analysed from different perspectives. From the point of view of man-
aging the processes of communication, it seems important to compare
the opinions and assessments of the people in managerial positions with
those expressed by rank-and-file employees. Moreover, it would be inter-
esting to look at the issue with regard to the character of work performed.
In the light of the research conducted by the authors, it is justifiable to
state that administrative staff tend to evaluate the effectiveness of internal
communication higher than line employees do. Therefore, it would be
useful to identify those components that lower the satisfaction of produc-
tion workers with the efficiency of communication, for example, and take
corrective action in these areas. The people who manage communication
in companies can also adopt different weights for the benchmarks used
in assessing the satisfaction with the various elements of the integrated
indicator. On the one hand, this would make it possible to indicate the
aspects which are particularly important from the point of view of the
communication strategy formulated and the instruments used to imple-
ment it; and on the other hand, it would help determine the level of
satisfaction in key areas.

5
In Poland, however, there is a strong attachment to the five-point scale so it is recommended that
this scale should be used in surveys involving Polish respondents (Białowąs 2006, p. 151).
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 203

Using the integrated index of satisfaction with internal communication

makes it possible to perform a comprehensive analysis of this issue. The
results can be interpreted not only in terms of the overall satisfaction of the
respondents, but also in terms of their satisfaction with the various compo-
nents affecting the communication process. In this way, it should be possible
to identify the factors that most significantly contribute to creating satisfac-
tion. The index could also be used to determine which of the categories (or
their components) require corrective action. As a result, both the partial and
overall satisfaction of employees can be increased. It is worth noting that
striving for 100% satisfaction with internal communication is not always
economically feasible or indeed possible to achieve. There are many rea-
sons for this, including technical, cultural, and financial factors. In addition,
the experience of communication auditors indicates that the measurements
which follow a successful implementation of corrective procedures produce
worse results. This is because employees become accustomed to higher com-
munication standards, and their expectations in this regard increase.

References
Adams, K., & Galanes, G.  J. (2008). Komunikacja w grupach. Warsaw:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Argenti, P.  A. (2007). Strategic corporate communication. New Delhi: Tata
McGraw-Hill Education.
Białowąs, S. (2006). Skale pięcio- i siedmiostopniowe. W poszukiwaniu opti-
mum. In J.  Garczarczyk (Ed.), Ilościowe i jakościowe metody badania rynku.
Pomiar i jego skuteczność. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego
w Poznaniu.
Clampitt, P., & Downs, C. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship
between communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business
Communication, 30(1), 5–28.
Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice.
London: Sage.
Cornelissen, J. (2012). Komunikacja korporacyjna, Przewodnik po teorii i prak-
tyce. Warsaw: Oficyna a Wolters Kluwer Business.
Czekaj, J., & Ziębicki, B. (2006). Audyt komunikacyjny w organizacji. In
A. Stabryła (Ed.), Doskonalenie systemów zarządzania w społeczeństwie infor-
macyjnym. Tom 1. Cracow: Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie.
204 Communication in Organizational Environments

Finney, S. (2011). Stakeholder perspective on internal marketing communica-

tion. Business Process Management Journal, 17(2), 311–331.
Frydrychowicz, S. (2009). Komunikacja interpersonalna w zarządzaniu. Poznań:
Wydawnictwo Forum Naukowe.
Galliers, R.  D., & Leidner, D.  E. (2003). Strategic information management.
Challenges and strategies in managing information systems. Burlington:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gros, U. (2003). Zachowania organizacyjne w teorii i praktyce zarządzania.
Warsaw: PWN.
Hargie, O., Rainey, S., & Dickson, D. (2003). Working Together, Living Apart:
Inter-group Communication within Organizations in Northern Ireland. In:
Communication Research and Media Science in Europe, Schorr, A., Campbell,
W. i Schenk, M. (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Heath, R. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia for public relations (Vol. 1). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Henderson, J.  K. (2005). Evaluating public relations effectiveness in a health
care setting. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 28(1/2),
282–321.
Holtz, S. (2004). Corporate conversations: A guide to crafting effective and appro-
priate internal communications. New York: AMACOM.
Klotz, M., & Strauch, P. (1990). Strategienorientierte Plannung betrieblicher
Informations- und Komunikationssysteme. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer
Verlag.
Lesca, E., & Lesca, H. (1995). Gestion de l’information. Qualité de l’information
et performances de l’entreprise. Paris: Editions Litec.
Linke, A., & Zerfass, A. (2011). Internal communication and innovation cul-
ture: Developing a change framework. Journal of Communication Management,
15(4), 332–348.
Mann, A., & Töpfer, A. (1996). Kundenzufriedenheit als Messlatte für den Erfolg.
In Kundenzufriedenheit messen und steigern (p. 44). Neuwied, Kriftel, Berlin:
Lucherhand Verlag.
Martyniak, Z. (Ed.). (1997). Elementy zarządzania informacją i komunikacją w
przedsiębiorstwie. Cracow: Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie.
Meng, J., & Berger, B. K. (2012). Measuring return on investment (ROI) of
organizations’ internal communication efforts. Journal of Communication
Management, 16(4), 332–354.
Mière, M. T. (2012). Communication et Management Stratégique. Etude, Analyse,
Enjeux, Éditions universitaires européennes.
Morreale, S. P., Spitzberg, B. H., & Barge, J. K. (2007). Komunikacja między ludźmi.
Motywacja, wiedza i umiejętności. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN SA.
 5 Determinants of Internal Communication Effectiveness 205

Nestorowicz, R. (2003). Metody badania satysfakcji klienta. In: Innowacje w mar-

ketingu. Młodzi o marketingu II. Sopot: Uniwersytet Gdański.
Olsztyńska, A. (2002). Komunikacja wewnętrzna w przedsiębiorstwie. In
H.  Mruk (Ed.), Komunikowanie się w biznesie. Poznań: Akademii
Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
Potocki, A. (2001). Komunikacja wewnętrzna w przedsiębiorstwie. Cracow:
Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie.
Potocki, A., Winkler, R., & Żbikowska, A. (2011). Komunikowanie w organizac-
jach gospodarczych. Warsaw: Difin.
Quirke, B. (2011). Komunikacja wewnętrzna krok po kroku. Warsaw: Wolters
Kluwer Polska sp. z o.o.
Rogala, A. (2013). Determinanty skuteczności komunikacji wewnętrznej w
przedsiębiorstwie. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Management, Poznań
University of Economics, Poznań.
Rogala, A. (2014). The relations between the internal communication condi-
tionings and its effectiveness. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 7(2),
69–77, University Publications.
Rogala, A., Wanat, T., Nestorowicz, R., & Stefańska, M. (2015). The effect of
communicating CSR and fair trade on the attitudes and behavior of employ-
ees of trading enterprises. In M.  Stefańska & R.  Nestorowicz (Eds.), Fair
trade in CSR strategy of global retailers (pp. 149–173). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Sikorski, C. (2001). Zachowania ludzi w organizacji. Warsaw: PWN.
Sobkowiak, B. (1998). Procesy komunikowania się w organizacji. In B. Dobek-
Ostrowska (Ed.), Współczesne systemy komunikowania. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
Sobkowiak, B. (2005). Interpersonalne i grupowe komunikowanie się w orga-
nizacji. Poznań/Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Forum Naukowe.
Stayer, R. (1990). How I learnt to let my workers lead. Harvard Business Review,
68, 66–83.
Stępka, P., & Subda, K. (2009). Wykorzystanie analizy sieci społecznych (SNA) do
budowy organizacji opartej na wiedzy, E-mentor nr 1 (28)/2009, http://
www.e-mentor.edu.pl/. Accessed September 2015.
Szymańska, A. (2004). Public relations w systemie zintegrowanej komunikacji
marketingowej. Wrocław: Unimex.
Tourish, D., & Hargie, O. (2000). Strategy, research and pedagogy. The role of
audits. In O. Hargie & D. Tourish (Eds.), Handbook of communication audits
for organizations. New York: Routledge.
Vos, M. F., & Schoemaker, H. (2004). Accountability of communication management:
A balanced scorecard for communication quality. Utrecht: LEMMA Publishers.
 6
Internal and External Communication:
In Search of Coherence

In this chapter the empirical research results will be analysed in terms of

the interdependence between internal and external communication. The
authors will present a systematization of the objectives of internal market-
ing communication, as well as conclusions concerning the degree of their
implementation. The relations between communication activities inside
an organization and those addressed to external customers will be dis-
cussed, with particular attention on the following issues: areas for building
the external image of an organization, the role of the sales staff in corpo-
rate communication, and the employees’ evaluation of communicating
corporate values in company materials. Moreover, the authors will present
a regression model for the comprehensive effectiveness of internal com-
munication, which will facilitate the effective allocation of resources for
the improvement of the overall effectiveness of internal communication.
On the basis of the paradigm of integrated marketing communication,
the authors will analyse the consistency of internal and external commu-
nication in the areas defined earlier. The chapter will argue for a change
in the approach to corporate communication. Instead of viewing internal
and external communication separately, it will propose an approach that
is complex and coherent in all its aspects.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 207

A. Rogala, S. Bialowas, Communication in Organizational
Environments, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54703-3_6
208 Communication in Organizational Environments

6.1 The Role of Communication in Internal

Marketing, Personnel Marketing
and Internal Public Relations
As the systematization of the objectives of internal communication pre-
sented earlier clearly shows, the importance of internal communication
goes far beyond ensuring an efficient flow of information. Conducted
properly, communication activities help to build trust between a com-
pany and its employees. When the management explains to the staff its
organizational vision and strategy, as well as the decisions which are taken
and the consequences that they bring, employee involvement in their
implementation increases. In addition, communication plays an impor-
tant role in preparing workers for any planned changes and later imple-
mentation. It is particularly important to indicate how the changes will
affect the daily functioning of individual members of the organization
(Armstrong 2011, p. 825). Thus, the aim of communication activities is
to gain the acceptance and approval of the staff as well as increasing their
commitment and sense of identification with the company.
All the above-mentioned issues are the focus of interest for three mar-
keting concepts: namely internal marketing, personnel marketing, and
internal public relations. Although each of them is defined through spe-
cific characteristics in the literature, the three concepts are not disjointed.
Because of the overlapping goals, tasks, and instruments used, it is often
difficult to assign many activities undertaken within this framework to
only one of the above areas. A summary of the different approaches for
explaining the essence of internal marketing, personnel marketing, and
internal public relations is presented in Table 6.1.
The concept of internal marketing derives from the field of marketing
and services management. Unlike in traditional marketing, the focus in
this case is on the internal customers of organizations, namely employ-
ees. The actions undertaken within this type of marketing are designed
to satisfy the needs of the personnel in terms of motivation and satisfac-
tion, which in turn should lead to achieving high quality in the products
and services offered by the company. Different definitions of internal
marketing emphasize its different features, such as orientation towards
Table 6.1 A summary of selected definitions of internal marketing, personnel
marketing, and internal public relations
Concept Definitions
Internal Hiring, training, and motivating employees to serve the customer well.a
marketing Treating employees as internal customers and treating jobs as
internal products which satisfy the needs and desires of employees
while they are implementing the company’s objectives.b
Planned activities which through the use of communication tools
and instruments for shaping the corporate climate, culture, and
internal image aim to motivate and integrate employees so that
they will effectively implement the company’s strategy, meet its
objectives, and initiate internal changes leading to improvements.c
Personnel A system of procedures and behaviours of a company oriented to the
marketing interests and expectations of prospective and current employees.d
The total internal and external activities of an organization
related to managing its social potential, shaping its size and
structure, enhancing it through creating favourable conditions
for employee engagement in the company’s activities,
increasing its market effectiveness, and acquiring the right
workers from the labour market.e
Corporate activities related to the social system which aim to create
and retain the image of an attractive, responsible, and fair employer
in both the external and internal job market; an employer who is
worth associating with because the individual development of each
employee determines the development of the organization as a
whole, and the development of the organization leads to the
further continuous self-improvement of its members.f
Internal public Creating a positive attitude of the staff towards the company
relations (…) Its aim is to encourage employees to become more
involved in achieving the company’s objectives (…) and to
arouse their pride in the company and their work.g
Measures intended to produce a positive attitude of employees
and shareholders towards the company, identify with it, and
consequently promote the firm externally. This means turning
them into true friends of the company.h
Actions undertaken by a company towards its employees (…)
This primarily involves an appropriate information policy and is
also frequently referred to as internal communication or
human communication. It serves to develop loyalty, inspire
trust and understanding for the policy of the management,
create a favourable working atmosphere (…), (and) shape the
external image of the organization.i
Influencing the internal environment by means of public relations
tools can be regarded as implementing human relations, the kind
of relationships which aim to build so-called employee morale
and an appropriate working climate. It is a planned and
systematic process of managing people who want to achieve
their own goals together with those of the organization.j
(continued)
210 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 6.1 (continued)

Source: Own compilation based on aKotler and Keller (2012, p. 23), bBerry and
Parasuraman as cited in: Baruk (2006, p. 19), cOlsztyńska (2005, p. 20), dSchwan
and Seipel (1997, p. 7), ePenc (1997, p. 239), fBaruk (2008, p. 112), gBlythe (2002,
p. 144), hRydel (2001, p. 61), iRozwadowska (2002, pp. 116–117), jBsoul (2003,
p. 439)

employees, orientation towards customers, and support in implement-

ing the corporate strategy and change management (Egan 2007, p. 354;
Finney 2011; Olsztyńska 2005, p. 11). In each case, however, it is treated
as a necessary support for measures aimed at the external customers of
the organization.
In modern studies devoted to internal marketing, authors often con-
centrate on aspects related to obtaining the acceptance and support of
the personnel for achieving the strategic objectives of the organization,
involving the staff in the decision-making process, and strengthening
their creativity and loyalty (Baruk 2008, p. 80). Effective action in this
area leads to better individual performance and, consequently, the better
performance of the entire enterprise. Satisfied employees can transfer
their satisfaction to customers, which in turn means the latter are more
profitable and loyal (Schultz 2004, p. 112). There are five basic elements
of internal marketing (Rafiq and Ahmed 2000, p. 456):

• employee motivation and satisfaction,

• customer orientation and customer satisfaction,
• inter-functional coordination and integration,
• marketing-like approach to the above,
• implementation of specific corporate or functional strategies.

Actions taken within the above-mentioned areas help to develop the

engagement of employees and their confidence in the organization. The
tasks performed with the help of internal marketing include the follow-
ing (Baruk 2008, p. 85):

• creating a positive image of the company among the personnel;

• developing employees awareness of the strategy and mission of the
company;
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 211

• stimulating innovativeness and creativity;

• improving horizontal and vertical communication among employees;
• motivating staff.

Such a broad spectrum of activities requires the use of a broad range of

instruments. A key condition for success is an efficient use of the internal
communication system, which makes it possible to gain the goodwill of
the staff towards the decisions taken by the management as well as devel-
oping their sense of identification with the company.
The second marketing concept which puts employees at the centre
of attention is personnel marketing. It includes activities conducted by
a company within the social system, the aim of which is to create and
maintain the image of the company as a good employer. The recipients
are employees, both current and prospective, and each of the two sub-
systems consists of different components. Internal personnel marketing
comprises internal communication, a motivation system, and a training
system for creating and reinforcing the company’s image as an employer,
as well as a system of internal recruitment and selection. External per-
sonnel marketing, in turn, involves activities related to communication
and recruitment, as well as creating and consolidating an organization’s
external image (Baruk 2006, pp. 14–15).
The core of this concept is satisfying the identified needs of current
and prospective employees, which is designed to establish an emotional
relationship with the company. Therefore, the following objectives need
to be achieved (Baruk 2008, p. 122):

• creating, developing, and consolidating the company’s image as an

attractive employer;
• acquiring and retaining staff whose emotional and intellectual poten-
tial determines the company’s unique personality and its market value;
• stimulating the activity and creativity of the organization’s members;
• establishing and strengthening ties with prospective employees;
• maintaining long-term relationships with former employees.

Thus personnel marketing is an extension of the internal marketing

concept, as both the area of its activities and the group of recipients
212 Communication in Organizational Environments

are larger. Treating each employee on the one hand as a valuable mem-
ber of the team, and on the other as a separate individual seeking their
own development means that a mutually beneficial relationship forms
between the employee and the organization. In order for these objectives
to be successfully implemented it is essential to have appropriate com-
munication within the company, which affects the personnel’s level of
motivation. Therefore, in this concept also, the communication aspect
plays a crucial role.
As regards internal public relations, the primary goal is to establish
and nurture positive relationships between the company and the internal
market. It is a tool for motivation, internalizing the mission, as well as
integrating employees around common goals (Wiktor 2001, p. 226). The
addressees of the activities are the executives, the staff, the owners of a
company, prospective or retired employees, and many others. Achieving
the primary goals requires primarily an appropriately managed informa-
tion policy, frequently referred to as internal communication or human
communication (Rozwadowska 2002, p. 116). Internal communication
is responsible for creating a positive image of an organization as well as
for motivating and training the personnel so that they act appropriately
when dealing with external customers. Providing up-to-date information
regarding the organization’s actions and decisions concerning employees
makes them more willing to accept them and cooperate in their imple-
mentation (De Pelsmacker et al. 2007, p. 298). A particularly important
factor is the involvement of the management in the internal communica-
tion process.
Internal public relations are thus based on the assumption that
the proper ordering of affairs within an organization is essential for a
company to acquire a good external reputation (Bsoul 2003, p. 439).
Considering the fact that employees are an important channel of com-
munication between the company and the external environment, it is
impossible to build a positive image of the firm or achieve other public
relations objectives without obtaining their favour. A company’s person-
nel, especially the people in lower-level positions, are treated in the exter-
nal environment as the most reliable source of information. A valued
employee who derives satisfaction from performing their duties conveys
positive information about the company (Rogala 2010, pp. 247–248).
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 213

Hence, through the actions undertaken as part of internal public rela-

tions both the internal and external image of the organization is built.
As is clear from the foregoing discussion, all three concepts are inter-
linked. They share a focus on employees, with a desire to satisfy their
needs and increase their sense of belonging to an organization, though
the reasons for undertaking activities in these areas are different. In the
case of internal marketing, the activities are designed to lead to better cus-
tomer service; in personnel marketing, to attracting and connecting valu-
able staff with the company; while in internal public relations, to turning
the people working in an organization into its ambassadors. Thus, the
practical application of these concepts can help in achieving many dif-
ferent goals and plays a vital role in the marketing of an organization
(Trębecki 2012, p. 79). The common area of their impact is primarily
building the image of a company. For this purpose, instruments of inter-
nal communication are used.
Corporate image depends on a number of different factors which
form a particular system. Its components include a company’s identity,
marketing communications, brand image, internal communication, and
public relations (Budzyński 2003, p. 70). Creating an image should start
within a company, so that the external image can later be confirmed dur-
ing interactions with the representatives of the organization. Employees
create and disseminate their company’s reputation if they feel connected
to it. One way to build a sense of belonging to an organization, and
consequently its image and reputation, is through using internal commu-
nication as a mechanism for promoting the core values of the enterprise
(Krawiec 2009, p. 83). The staff act as ambassadors for an organization
in its environment so they should be properly prepared for this func-
tion. Effective internal communication exerts a positive influence on
the process of image-building outside the organization. However, most
researchers and companies pay more attention to external communica-
tion, which helps build a company’s image and distinguish it from others
on the market, while at the same time marginalizing the role of internal
communication. They underestimate the fact that employees may be the
most important addressees of a company’s efforts to create its true image
(Christensen and Askegaard 2001, pp. 292–315). The personnel embod-
ies the company’s brand, and the interactions between the employees and
214 Communication in Organizational Environments

external customers are a testimony to the values which it professes at

least to the same extent as traditionally understood marketing commu-
nications. Employees who identify with the organization contribute to
building a competitive advantage through their contacts with custom-
ers (Hardaker and Fill, 2005, pp. 365–376). Therefore, internal com-
munication should increase the understanding of corporate objectives
among employees as well as their own role in the company, and encour-
age them to strive to achieve these objectives. Research shows that orga-
nizations which attach more importance to the process of information
transfer can boast a higher level of employee involvement (Thomson and
Hecker 2000, p. 57) and a better reputation (Dortok 2006, pp. 322–
338). However, the actions undertaken under internal communication
will most probably fail if the messages directed within a company are not
consistent with those sent without. It should be noted that the needs of
the staff and customers should be regarded as equally important. Because
of the subject matter of this work, in this section the authors will discuss
the impact of internal communication on the perception of a company
by its employees.

6.2 The Importance of Communication

in an Organization Regarding Marketing
Communications Activities1
The activity of companies in the areas of internal marketing, public rela-
tions, and personnel marketing, with particular emphasis on the com-
munication aspect, seems to be crucial in the context of the multiplicity
of areas that should be taken into account when considering the internal
dimension of marketing communications.
Modern societies are bombarded with messages, many of which are
regarded as annoying, distracting, or unnecessary. As a result, companies

1
Subsection based on the following paper: Rogala A., 2015, Towards a New Paradigm of Integrated
Marketing Communication, 2nd Dubrovnik International Economic Meeting (DIEM 2015),
Scientific Conference of Innovation, Leadership &amp; Entrepreneurship—Challenges of Modern
Economy, pp. 698–710.
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 215

are facing a huge challenge in relation to their communication activi-

ties. The literature on the subject recognized the necessity of reaching
consumers by various channels and tools a long time ago. The need for
an integrated approach was first pointed out in the 1980s, when it was
stated that marketing and public relations are not separate functions with
different target groups but that they complement each other. Because of
changes in the approach to both these areas, the model which grew in sig-
nificance was the one whereby these functions should be integrated, coor-
dinated, aligned, and in some cases completely fused (Torp 2009, s. 192).
This was the beginning of the Integrated Marketing Communication
(IMC) concept. However, even though much time has elapsed since
then, this concept is still far from being unambiguous, and different
authors emphasize different aspects of IMC in their definitions, often in
opposition to earlier approaches.
According to Duncan, IMC is “(…) the process of strategically con-
trolling or influencing all messages and encouraging purposeful dialogue
to create and nourish profitable relationships with customers and other
stakeholders” (Duncan and Caywood, 1996, p. 18). A few years later this
definition was expanded by Duncan and Mulhern, who described IMC
as “an on-going, interactive, cross-functional process of brand communica-
tion planning, execution, and evaluation that integrates all parties in the
exchange process in order to maximize mutual satisfaction of each other’s
wants and needs” (2004, p. 9). It should be noted that marketing com-
munication as a process crosses the traditional departmental boundaries.
This point of view is shared by Christensen, Firat, and Torp, who claim
that IMC evolved from a rather bounded and specialized activity into an
organization-wide issue and concern (2008, p. 425).
Shultz defines IMC as “(…) strategic business process used to plan,
develop, execute and evaluate coordinated, measurable, persuasive brand
communications programs over time with consumers, customers, prospects,
employees, associates and other targeted, relevant external and internal
audiences” (2004, p. 9). It should be stressed that the author points to
employees as one of the important groups of targets for activities under-
taken within marketing communication.
The need for looking at a company’s communication activities as a
whole, not divided into separate areas such as marketing communication,
216 Communication in Organizational Environments

corporate communication, or internal communication, has been more

and more frequently pointed out in recent years. As a result, there is a
growing number of supporters of the Integrated Communication (IC)
concept, defined as “the notion and the practice of aligning symbols, messages,
procedures and behaviours in order for an organization to communicate with
clarity, consistency and continuity within and across formal organizational
boundaries” (Christensen et al. 2008, p. 424). The authors argue that if
those in charge of communication management in organizations do not
understand that all acts of communication must be coherent, their influ-
ence will be much smaller. In consequence, the organization’s image and
the perception of its brands will suffer.
The definitions cited above imply certain consequences for the manage-
ment of communication activities. Particularly prominent among them
is the need to identify the different audiences and their expectations, and
to customize the messages and the tools that are used to the recipients of
the process. As rightly observed by J.W. Wiktor (2011, p. 13), marketing
communication should be directed not only at the potential customer
but at a wider audience. From the point of view of effective business
operations, communication directed both inside and outside the organi-
zation ought to be effective.
Because of the necessity for taking into account the needs and expecta-
tions of many groups of recipients as well as the different interests every
company has, marketing communication is a complex process. This is
confirmed by an extensive classification of objectives, the realization of
which can involve both internal and external recipients. Table 6.2 lists the
most important objectives of marketing communication together with
the addressees of the actions undertaken in their implementation.
Given the variety of marketing communication objectives, it can be
concluded that the main addressee of the actions undertaken for their
implementation are the customers. Employees, in turn, enable the
achievement of the goals formulated by the organization. Therefore, mar-
keting communication should aim to improve the attitudes of the staff
towards the company so that they will perform their duties with greater
dedication and, consequently, be more effective in selling products and
services to customers (Rogala and Kaniewska-Sęba 2013). In the pro-
cess of marketing communication, employees can, and usually do, fulfil
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 217

Table 6.2 The most important objectives for an organization’s communications

Objectives Addressees of actions
Create awareness of a new product offering Internal and external
Launch a new product offering External
Stimulate trial purchase External
Increase frequency of purchase External
Increase consumption External
Increase retail store traffic External
Encourage brand switching External
Reduce or eliminate post-purchase cognitive dissonance External
Generate sales leads External
Set up appointments for salespeople External
Make specific sales presentations External
Reinforce brand loyalty External
Render a public service Internal and external
Change perceptions or attitudes towards a product or a Internal and external
company Internal and external
Convey positive information about the organization Internal and external
Build the image of the product or organization Internal
Improve employees’ attitudes towards the organization
Source: Own compilation based on Koekemoer (2005, p. 23)

a triple role. Firstly, because of their professional and private contacts

with the outside environment, they constitute a transmission channel for
the information transmitted from the company to current and potential
customers. Secondly, the sales staff and the people involved more broadly
in customer service are a kind of communication tool because their atti-
tudes, gestures, and words are a reflection of the organization as a whole.
Finally, the third and, in the opinion of the authors, the most impor-
tant role is that of the addressee of messages, which affects the behaviour
of employees in fulfilling the other two. If employees are inadequately
informed, excluded, or dissatisfied with the internal communication, one
can hardly expect them to become convincing ambassadors for the com-
pany in the external environment.
A concept which stresses the need for using a range of different tools
and channels to send consistent messages to all customers (both inter-
nal and external) is Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC).
In the literature there are a number of definitions of IMC, emphasizing its
different components (see: Baker and Mitchell 2000; Cornelissen 2001;
218 Communication in Organizational Environments

Kitchen and Schultz 1999; Kliatchko 2005; Low 2000; Reid et al. 2005).
According to P. Kotler and K.L. Keller (2012, p. 530), IMC should be
understood as “a planning process designed to assure that all brand contacts
received by a customer or prospect for a product, service or organisation are
relevant to that person and consistent over time.” Particular attention should
be paid to the clarity, consistency, and perfect integration of communica-
tions. IMC should therefore not be equated with the standardization of
messages sent to various customers through various channels, but with a
comprehensive coordination and management of messages transmitted
through complementary channels to specific addressee groups. This will
enable a coherent image of the organization to be presented and built
(Kitchen Brignell et al. 2004).
The inclusion of internal recipients in marketing communication
activities implies the need for informing and familiarizing employees
with new products, services, business partners, or strategies in order to
motivate and prepare them for the proper performance of their duties.
The quality and results of the relationship between the organization and
the personnel depend primarily on how the parties communicate with
each other. It should be remembered that employees also make some kind
of purchasing decisions, for example, whether to engage in the realization
of the business objectives or whether to share the vision of the organiza-
tion and the values that it professes (Thomson and Hecker 2000, p. 48).
Incorporating internal communication into marketing communica-
tion activities involves four stages. The first stage is creating an appropri-
ate atmosphere for communication within the organization. A positive
communication climate and culture support a two-way flow of informa-
tion throughout the enterprise, which in turn promotes the building of
beneficial relationships both among the staff and between the staff and
the company (Asif and Sergeant 2000). Once an appropriate atmosphere
has been created, it is necessary to employ a wide array of instruments;
for example, in the form of personal selling, advertising within the orga-
nization, workshops, awards, and incentives. The correct selection of
tools makes it possible to achieve the defined goals, such as promoting
an internal brand and increasing employee engagement and satisfaction.
The last two stages relate to measuring the effectiveness of internal IMC
and obtaining feedback, which can help in taking any required corrective
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 219

action (Ferdous 2008, pp. 226–230). It is worth noting that according to

some authors, internal and external communication are too complex and
involve too many means and flows to be effectively regulated within the
IMC framework (Prymon 2011, p. 98).
The definition of internal marketing communication adopted for the
purposes of this study describes it as a process of conveying information
and influencing the personnel, which aims to increase the level of knowl-
edge about a company’s products and the company itself so that conse-
quently they will become favoured by customers. Marketing directed to
the employees of an organization was defined as activities undertaken in
the form of internal marketing, personnel marketing, and internal public
relations. A key condition for their success is the existence of a system
informing the staff about the company’s offering. However, as the research
that was conducted shows, significant negligence on the part of compa-
nies is evident in this area. The respondents were asked to declare whether
their organization had a system for informing the employees about the
products or services it offers, and as many as 39.1% stated that such
a system existed. But nearly one-third of the people surveyed (31.8%)
were unable to give a definite answer to this question, and according
to 29.1% of the respondents, such solutions did not exist in their com-
panies. Next, the researchers wanted to know how respondents assessed
the level of information provided regarding their company’s offering.
Out of 1354 people, 479 considered themselves to be well or very well
acquainted with the goods or services provided by their company, which
accounted for 35.4% of respondents. In turn, 391 of the people surveyed
(28.9%) declared that they were definitely or rather dissatisfied with the
information they had about the offering of the company for which they
worked. A surprisingly large number of respondents, 35.7%, were unable
to unequivocally express their opinion on this matter. It is worth noting
that those who opted for the “no opinion” response were mainly produc-
tion workers, while negative opinions about the information system were
expressed by both production workers and office staff. These findings
illustrate the scale of the problem in terms of providing personnel with
knowledge in such an important area as the company’s market offering.
One can hardly expect employees who possess inadequate information
220 Communication in Organizational Environments

in this matter to properly fulfil their role in contacts with potential or

current customers.
An analysis of the wide range of tasks to be fulfilled by external mar-
keting communication on the one hand, and by the marketing concepts
aimed at the staff on the other, as well as the interrelationships between
them, helped the creation of a systematization for the objectives of inter-
nal marketing communication. According to the authors, these include
the following:

• conveying to employees specific information about the company and

its offering;
• influencing the behaviour and attitudes of employees in their relations
with customers;
• creating and consolidating a positive image of the organization among
staff;
• encouraging employees to take advantage the company’s offering.

The hierarchy of these objectives may, but need not, vary depending
on the nature of individual enterprises. In the case of service industries it
will be vital to influence the behaviour and attitudes of employees in their
relations with customers. For a manufacturing company, on the other
hand, it may be more important to create a positive image of the firm in
the eyes of the personnel. The ranking of the objectives will also depend
on whether the assessment is made from the perspective of the employees
or the employer.

6.3 Interdependence Between Internal

and External Communication2
All the signals transmitted by a company to its environment combine
to produce a comprehensive image of the company and its offering,
and therefore they should be consistent to the greatest possible extent.
This consistency helps to build credibility and reputation, which in turn
2
Subsection based on the following conference paper: A. Rogala, The dependencies between internal
and external communication of the organization – the problem of coherence, paper for 15th Eurasia
Business and Economics Society (EBES) Conference, Lisbon, January 2015.
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 221

translates into the performance of an organization. For this reason

it is necessary to integrate the communication activities directed at
the customer and the market with those directed at the interior of the
organization. Today, an organization’s marketing activity is treated
as a complex process, which is reflected by the twenty-first-century
marketing concept. It is based on the so-called holistic orientation,
which assumes “development, design and implementation of marketing
programs, processes and activities that recognize their breadth and
interdependencies” (Kotler and Keller 2012, p. 20). Therefore, the
concept of holistic marketing is based on understanding the complexity
of marketing activities. The four basic components of holistic marketing
are: relationship marketing, integrated marketing, internal marketing,
and performance marketing. In this concept it is assumed that only the
consistency of actions undertaken in the above-mentioned areas will
enable a company to effectively function in the market. Consequently,
holistic marketing implies changes to the traditional marketing mix. For
a better illustration of the current market conditions, the set of marketing
tool categories within the new marketing management consists of the
new 4Ps. These are: people, processes, programmes, and performance,
with a particular stress on people. According to the supporters of the
holistic approach, it is the employees’ competences and the way they
perform their duties that decide the success or failure of an organization.
The diversity of communication activities and the need for their com-
prehensive treatment very often lead to deficits in organizational com-
munication systems. These deficits most often appear when the messages
conveyed are inconsistent in their content, time of distribution, and for-
mal aspects, or if they are mutually exclusive. The analysis of commu-
nication deficits is predominantly focused on the level of consistency in
internal and external communication, that is, on the classical communi-
cation gap. This gap occurs when employees are not informed of a com-
pany’s communication activities directed outside, or when the messages
conveyed are contradictory (Zajkowska 2011, p. 64). Inconsistencies in
the messages, choice of tools, or the objectives of organizational commu-
nication lead to discrepancies between employees’ attitudes and custom-
ers’ expectations. In consequence, they negatively affect the image of the
organization as a whole.
222 Communication in Organizational Environments

Thus, communication within an organization should be regarded as

an area of exceptional concern for the people involved in marketing.
The most important reason for this is the fact that internal communica-
tion plays a crucial role in motivating employees. This, in turn, translates
into the quality of the products and services offered by the company.
It should also be borne in mind that the effectiveness of the motivation
and training systems affects the attitude of the staff in contacts with cus-
tomers. In addition, many activities intended as internal communication
affect the elements of the marketing mix; they can also result in an inten-
tional or unintentional transfer of information to external customers (see,
e.g. Smith et al. 2002, p. 13).
The element that integrates internal and external communication
should be the internal image of the organization. Because of its impact
on the behaviour and attitudes of the personnel, it is also essential for
the brand positioning of the company’s products and services. Strategies
which are implemented and changes which are introduced have an impact
not only on the employees but also, directly or indirectly, on the exter-
nal environment (Olsztyńska 2005, p. 18). As a result, communication
addressed to the outside of an organization should be founded on an effi-
cient process of internal communication. One must also consider the fact
that employees have their own opinions about the market offering and
the company as a whole, which is why it is essential to strive to achieve
a situation in which the internal and external images are consistent. The
attitude of the personnel has an impact on the relationships with current
and prospective customers, and consequently affects the performance of
an organization.
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 223

6.4 The Significance of Internal

Communication for the Internal
and External Marketing
of Organizations: Research Results3
The significance of internal communication for marketing activities was
assessed by employees. The assessment concerned the impact of commu-
nication as a whole on specific areas (SIGNIFICANCE). In the opinion
of the employees surveyed, internal communication is likely to have the
greatest impact on their readiness to recommend the company’s offering

3.6
readiness to recommend the
company's offerings to friends and
family
3.5

3.4
Significance

inclination to recommend the

company as an employer

3.3
general work atmosphere

3.2
employees' knowledge of the percepon of the company by
products/services offered by the employees
company
3.1

3
3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5
Implementation in the company

Fig. 6.1 The significance of internal communication for selected aspects of

organizations’ operations in the opinion of employees, and an assessment
of the impact of internal communication on these aspects in their companies
(Source: Own research)

3
Subsection based on the following conference paper: A. Rogala, The dependencies between internal
and external communication of the organization – the problem of coherence, paper for 15th Eurasia
Business and Economics Society (EBES) Conference, Lisbon, January 2015.
224 Communication in Organizational Environments

to friends and family, their inclination to recommend the company as an

employer, as well as the atmosphere at work in general. To a lesser extent,
internal communication can affect the perception of the company by
employees and their knowledge about the company’s offering. In addi-
tion to assessing the potential impact of internal communication, the
employees also evaluated the influence of internal communication on the
areas analysed in their companies (IMPLEMENTATION).4
Internal communication performed relatively the best in terms creating a
good atmosphere at work and influencing the perception of the company by
employees. Its impact was assessed as lower with regard to recommending
the company as an employer, a readiness to recommend the company’s offer-
ing to others, as well as knowledge about the company’s offering. Figure 6.1
shows the results in the form of a Significance/Implementation matrix.
Overall results are presented as large squares; with circles representing the
results for the Balanced segment—triangles for the Relationship-oriented
segment—and crosses for the Task-oriented segment.
It is evident that relationship-oriented employees perceive internal
communication as more important than the other segments do; they
have also experienced its practical application. Although they work in the
same companies as the others, they are more sensitive to internal com-
munication activities and more closely observe their effects.
As is clear from the foregoing, communication activities have an
impact on building the external image of an organization. However, there
are difficulties in terms of building an appropriate internal image. There
are many reasons for this and, depending on the situation, these rea-
sons may increase or decrease in importance. The focus group interviews
conducted among employees also concerned this area of communication
within organizations, and by employing the method of free association,
participants were asked to note down the first five associations that came
to mind with regard to their company’s image. The respondents expressed
mostly positive opinions about the companies for which they worked.
There were some critical comments, primarily related to dissatisfaction

4
For both questions (significance and implementation) a five-point scale was adopted, from 1 (defi-
nitely no) to 5 (definitely yes). Then mean values of the obtained scores were calculated for each of
the aspects.
 6

Table 6.3 The associations of focus group participants relating to their company’s image and the values which are esteemed
in their organization
Opinion about
communication Good Average Bad
Associations Great Flexible Well-known Dynamic Difficult Annoying
with the Organized Modern Brand-name With perspectivesToxic With
company Professional Comfortable Large Family Sometimes OK perspectives
Reliable Open to To be Modernized Gives a sense of Modern Focused on
Demanding customers Neglected security Innovative profit not on
Good Energetic “comfortable” With an Has a future people
Solvent Dynamic Modern extensive Eco-friendly Undergoing
Permanent Unpredictable Credible structure Innovative transformation
Stable OK Efficient Safe Disorganized Difficult to deal
Concrete Staff-friendly Stable A bit fossilized Cool with
Specific Open to Developing Does not share Open Unadjusted to
Long-established communication Caring for the staff its wealth with Solid employees’
Interesting Just like other Well managed the staff Disorderly needs
Comfortable small firms Friendly Poor Badly
Developing Open to new Thrifty communication Perceived
Well-organized ideas and Divided Low salaries Rich
Pleasant changes Rich Not staff-friendly Dynamic
Friendly Respected and “Czech” (= surreal) Operates on the Dirty
Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence

Innovative recognizable Solvent basis of law Chaotic

on the market Unstable
(continued)
225
 226

Table 6.3 (continued)

Opinion about
communication Good Average Bad
Values/qualities Trust Punctuality Honesty Creativity Knowledge
esteemed in Engagement Diligence Communicativeness Efficiency Practice
the company Hard work Willingness to Loyalty Dependability Devotion
Innovativeness develop Quality Effectiveness Flexibility
Reliability Openness Harmony Subordination Responsibility
Truthfulness Solidarity Professionalism Action Engagement
Motivation Mobility Efficiency Work above
Dedication Responsibility Involvement all
Knowledge Competence Knowledge Dedication
Approachability Candour Proficiency Profitability
Honesty Flexibility Multi-functionality Reticence
Communica- Performing tasks Independence Hard work
tiveness Resourcefulness Contacts
Cooperation Professionalism Family connections
Compromise Diligent work Disability
Communication in Organizational Environments

Dependability Intelligence Devotion

Stability Being Effectiveness
Willingness goal-oriented
to work
Source: Own compilation based on qualitative research
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 227

with the remuneration system and inadequate organization of their com-

panies. The responses are listed in Table 6.3, divided into three groups
according to whether the people who expressed them were satisfied, mod-
erately satisfied, or dissatisfied with communication.
Those respondents who evaluated the communication process within
their organizations as good also tend to have positive associations with
their companies. The only ambiguous term which the respondents
from this group used was the word “unpredictable,” although the con-
text indicates that it was meant in the sense of dynamism. Generally,
the companies which the participants represented were regarded as reli-
able, professional, developing, stable, and staff-friendly. On the other
hand, those respondents who were moderately satisfied with communi-
cation frequently used terms with slightly negative connotations such as
“a little fossilized,” “neglected,” “low salaries,” and “not staff-friendly.”
Still, in this case the overall assessment was also positive. However, those
who assessed the communication in their companies as bad were more
inclined to criticize their employer. They used more emphatic terms
(“neglected,” “toxic,” “difficult to deal with,” and “focused on profit and
not on people”), which clearly emphasized their dissatisfaction and disap-
proval of the actions undertaken in the organization. It should be noted,
though, that most of the employees interviewed could see some positive
sides to their companies, in particular, appreciating them for dynamism,
stability of employment, and innovativeness.
The table also presents the answers to a gap-fill test, where the sentence
to be completed was “…and … are values esteemed in my company.” In
the case of participants who were satisfied with internal communication,
again there were many positive terms: for example, “dependability,” “will-
ingness to work,” or “honesty.” In contrast, people who were moderately
satisfied or completely dissatisfied with internal communication opted
for more pejorative words/terms: for example, “family connections” or
“contacts.” The term “disability” appeared in the survey conducted in a
company which employs people with disabilities. This question proved
the most problematic for respondents who considered communication in
their companies to be bad. Among the values which were appreciated in
their companies, they included, for example, “reticence” and “work above
228 Communication in Organizational Environments

all,” which indicates some negative experiences as well as dissatisfaction

with both internal communication and their jobs in the companies.
When discussing the image of the companies, many different views
were expressed. The participants were eager to share their own views on
this subject, as well as the opinions of their customers and associates.
Table 6.4 presents selected opinions of the participants on the internal
and external image of the companies for which they work. The state-
ments are divided into three groups: the first group are people who are
satisfied with internal communication, the second group are moderately
satisfied, and the third are dissatisfied.
Respondents who indicated a positive communication atmosphere
and good relations with their superiors and colleagues often manifested
a positive attitude towards the organization as a whole. In the case of
companies run by their founders, their personality had a considerable
influence on the image, both internal and external. In one of the com-
panies surveyed, the owner is a secretive and taciturn person, but he is
hardworking and honest. He is highly respected by the employees, who
feel secure in the company and are eager to get involved in its develop-
ment. In another organization, the founder is a peremptory extrovert,
which negatively affects the relationships within the company and dis-
courages the staff from suggesting any ideas. The participants admitted
that employment stability and the certainty that they will receive their
salaries are very important to them, and this affects their perception of
the company. The internal image has a greater impact on the external
image in the case of companies that operate in local markets. This is
because the employees influence the opinions in their reference groups
about their company as an employer, producer of goods, or provider of
services. Because of the small geographical area and close relationships
between people in small communities, this information spreads rapidly
and is regarded as reliable.
Despite often having negative opinions about the organization as a
whole, its operations, or its communication activities, the participants
were able to objectively comment on the range of products or services
offered by their companies. This shows that they feel responsible for the
company in which they work, and the good opinion of customers is a
token of appreciation for their hard work.
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 229

Table 6.4 Selected opinions of focus group participants on the internal and exter-
nal image of the represented companies
Positive opinion of internal communication
Opinion on external image Opinion on internal image
“(…) last time I went (…) the “Well, it’s OK, it’s dynamic, develops in the right
customer was very happy that direction in my opinion. It’s solvent, both for
it is already the second year us and the customers, I think. Can be an
with our company and doesn’t example (…).”
want to change. The quality is “There are good opinions among the staff, if
good (…), it is on time, as it only because the salaries are paid on time (…)
should be.” There are more and more people—during the
“(…) our company is well 3 years the staff grew from 26 to 77, so it is
regarded, at least here in this (…) a huge growth. The boss does not get rid
area. And I don’t see why it of people just because he doesn’t like
should be any different.” something but only if something really
“(…) I talked to a customer and happens. And even if something really
he said that he had been happens, he still gives another chance.”
bringing grain here for a long “It is (…) a place where I sometimes like to come
time and he is happy that we because I know that there are people here
pay on time. (…) we are quite who I can talk to, have a laugh, and everything
well regarded. (…) I heard a is sort of different (…).”
lot of positive comments “(…) developing, pleasant and open.”
about the boss and the
company.”
“I mean we are probably well
regarded by those local
farmers. For example, because
the customer base grows from
year to year.”
“In my opinion the company is “I think it’s good. That’s my feeling.”
well regarded in the local “Very good. It’s nice to work in a modern,
market (…).” developing company.”
“Good, because we simply sell a “Quite positive, even very.”
lot.” “My impressions are positive. As far as I’m
“The product is good, we sell a concerned.”
lot of it.” “Nobody creates it in our firm, nobody tries to
“There are orders from abroad, convince us that it is better.”
if something was wrong there
wouldn’t be any.”
“They are very positive in my
opinion.”
(continued)
230 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 6.4 (continued)

Average opinion of internal communication
Opinion on external image Opinion on internal image
“(…) they have a very good “Older workers (…) have a good opinion of the
opinion about us in terms of company because they have worked here for
product quality because they some years, they created. Young workers, they
say we have the best products come, I don’t know how much they earn, but
on the market and we are the they would probably like much more for sure.”
best, but, and it is true, “(…) I am happy with what I’ve got. I live
untimely.” nearby, so I don’t have to, like it was said
“(…) with most of our earlier, I don’t have to commute. The company
customers we have very sort is stable.”
of stable relations and often “Poor”
not so formalized. They “Average”
consider us a reliable
company.”
“Satisfied customers. Our
company has a very good
image, there is order.”
“The external image of our
company is often bad because
phone calls are answered by
people who shouldn’t answer
them”
“(…) once we heard an opinion
that if it wasn’t for the service
that our department provides,
they wouldn’t stay with us but
would look for some
alternative sources.”
“I think it is positive. There are “Despite appearances, the mark is low. For the
some minor glitches that lack of motivation. (…) we haven’t developed
appear sometimes but such mechanisms as communication. (…) Many
generally the image is very people, if they get only slightly better money,
good. Anyway, you can see it are likely to leave.”
when you go to some forums. “depends on the department (…) It is not as if
The image is generally (…) people are here as a punishment.”
positive.” “The staff are generally happy.”
“We have very few complaints,
so rather positive I think.”
Negative opinion of internal communication
Opinion on external image Opinion on internal image
(continued)
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 231

Table 6.4 (continued)

“It also depends on whether “So-so for sure. They work because they have to.
our shoes sell or not. When They have no other option.”
the shoes sell, everybody (…) “Why do we automatically assume that it is
is generally happy. (…) but if bad? It’s fine, it’s good…”
the shoes don’t sell then of “I mean it is good but on the fifth everybody
course the opinion about the can see that it is bad (…) And everybody will
company changes.” tell you that if we had better salaries it would
“Because generally we have be really good”
very nice shoes.”
Source: Own compilation based on qualitative research

Table 6.5 Attitudes most commonly manifested by respondents in the cartoon

test
Situation 1 Situation 2
Talking to a friend Talking to a supervisor
Opinion of Consistency between words Consistency between words
communication and thoughts and thoughts
Good ++ +
Average + +−
Poor ++ −
Legend ++ full consistency + moderate consistency +− avoiding answer
− −full inconsistency −moderate inconsistency
Source: Own research

The focus group interviews also made use of a projective technique in

the form of a cartoon test. The participants were asked to complete what
they would think and say in two situations. In Situation 1, they had to
state whether they would recommend their company as a place of work
to a friend. The conversation takes place outside the company. Situation
2 involved a discussion with their supervisor at work about the intro-
duction of possible improvements in the functioning of the company.
The responses were then analysed in terms of the degree of consistency
between the opinions expressed in both situations and what the respon-
dents thought in each of them. Table 6.5 shows the most commonly
manifested attitudes.
In Situation 1 the majority of respondents, regardless of how they
assessed communication in their companies, showed consistency between
232 Communication in Organizational Environments

what they thought and how they answered their friend’s question. Some
discrepancies appeared when the participants were not convinced that
the person would fit into the company, or did not want to reveal the
truth about the atmosphere at work or the earnings. Interestingly, if
the situation in the company was tense and the communication was
assessed as bad, the majority thought and said the same. In Situation 2
the participants showed greater reserve. Few people took the liberty of
being entirely honest with their supervisor. For those who evaluated
communication as good, the statements were moderately consistent
with what the respondents thought. The employees did not reveal mis-
givings about the boss’ ideas. Among those who considered communica-
tion to be average, the majority of the respondents adopted the strategy
of avoiding a clear answer, and their thoughts were focused on finding
the causes for such behaviour by their supervisor. A moderate inconsis-
tency occurred when employees had no confidence in the company and
were dissatisfied with the communication process. That is why they do
not want to share their true opinions. Evidently, employees are reluctant
to reveal what they really think. In most cases this is a result of previous
negative experiences with regard to communication. From the point of
view of managing the overall image of a company and striving to achieve
its coherence in different areas, it is necessary to ensure the possibility
of open dialogue based on respect and trust. This is especially important
when planning and implementing changes.
Because of the interdependence between internal and external com-
munication, it was decided to examine their coherence (Table 6.6).
Employees of companies were asked to assess whether communication

Table 6.6 Assessment of coherence between internal and external communication

Relationship- Task-
Total Balanced oriented oriented
Information about products and/or 3.25 3.23 3.24 3.27
services offered
Employees’ opinions about 3.21 3.22 3.24 3.18
products and/or services offered
Corporate image 3.32 3.39 3.13 3.33
Organizational values 3.21 3.21 3.18 3.23
Employment policy 3.17 3.11 3.23 3.21
Source: Own research
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 233

addressed outside the company was consistent with internal communica-

tion on a five-point scale (1—definitely no; 5—definitely yes).
According to respondents, the level of coherence is moderate in most
of the analysed areas. It should be noted that for each of the areas the pro-
portion of those who are undecided ranges from 35% to 50%, and may
be due to the employees’ lack of knowledge on the subject (this applied
mainly to production workers). Looking at the results obtained for the
entire research sample, the highest rate of coherence was observed for
corporate image (average rating of 3.32), and the lowest rate was recorded
for information on employment policy (3.17). Such a low score is due
to a relatively large number of “definitely no” and “rather no” answers
(18.91% of responses) and “difficult to say” responses (46.16%). This
may mean that employees are not adequately informed in this regard,
but it may also indicate that the organization does not meet the staff’s
expectations in this respect. The most disturbing finding seems to be the
over 20% share of negative answers regarding consistency in the area of
employees’ opinions about the products and/or services offered by their
companies. This result may indicate that staff talks about them in differ-
ent ways at work and outside the workplace. However, if the employees
are to become ambassadors for their company’s offering, it is imperative
to integrate these opinions.
Analysing the results obtained for the different segments of employees,
it can be seen that Balanced workers awarded the lowest scores to the
consistency of communication with regard to employment policy (3.11),
and the highest to consistency relating to the image of the company
(3.39). Considering the characteristics of this group of employees, their
moderate assessment of the consistency of communication with regard to
employment conditions clearly necessitates remedial action in this area.
For the Relationship-oriented group, on the other hand, the coherence of
communication relating to the company’s image was the poorest (3.13),
whereas consistency regarding information about the products and/or
services and the opinions of the employees about them (both 3.24) was
evaluated the most highly. For the people belonging to this group, the
atmosphere in the workplace and interpersonal relationships are important,
so the low score for consistency relating to image may be a result of some
dissatisfaction with the measures undertaken in this area. Finally, in the
Table 6.7 Pearson’s r-correlation coefficients between the achievement of internal communication objectives and the coher-
234

ence of internal and external communication

Employees’
Information about opinions about
the products and/or the products and/ Corporate Organizational Employment Overall
services offered or services offered image values policy coherence
Providing employees with 0.400** 0.348** 0.419** 0.300** 0.331** 0.445**
the up-to-date information
necessary for their proper
functioning in the
organization
Motivating employees to 0.376** 0.362** 0.449** 0.345** 0.396** 0.478**
work for the benefit of the
organization
Creating a positive 0.359** 0.348** 0.456** 0.306** 0.397** 0.463**
atmosphere in the
workplace
Uniting employees around 0.303** 0.273** 0.413** 0.303** 0.359** 0.410**
the mission, values and
strategy of the
organization
Building a positive image of 0.398** 0.368** 0.534** 0.372** 0.422** 0.519**
Communication in Organizational Environments

the company among

employees
Preparing employees for 0.327** 0.267** 0.391** 0.253** 0.340** 0.391**
upcoming changes
Overall internal 0.426** 0.387** 0.525** 0.370** 0.443** 0.533**
communication
Source: Own research
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 235

Task-oriented segment the lowest scores were recorded for coherence

with regard to the opinions of employees about the products and/or
services offered by the company (3.18), and the highest for coherence
relating to the company’s image (3.33). The more critical assessment of
the former area may be due to the fact that, considering their approach to
work, this issue is more important to the respondents and consequently
their expectations are higher.
Internal communication plays an important role in shaping the
attitudes of employees, which are manifested both within the organization
and outside. Therefore, it was decided to check whether there is a
correlation between the effectiveness of communication in enterprises
and the coherence between internal and external communication.
Analyses of Pearson’s r-correlation between the achievement of internal
communication objectives and the assessment of the consistency of
internal and external communication activities were conducted. Table 6.7
shows the correlation coefficients for the analysed variables.
Correlation analyses showed that all the correlations between the
achievement of internal communication objectives and the assessment
of internal communication coherence, as well as between the overall
assessment of the effectiveness of internal communication and the assess-
ment of the coherence of comprehensive communication activities, are
positive and statistically significant. The highest correlation coefficients
were recorded for the following variables:

• overall assessment of the coherence of communication activities and

the assessment of the effectiveness of internal communication (r =
0.533);
• assessment of coherence in respect of corporate image and the assess-
ment of the implementation of the objective relating to building a
positive image of the company through internal communication (r =
0.534);
• assessment of coherence in respect of corporate image and the overall
assessment of the effectiveness of internal communication (r = 0.525);
• overall assessment of the coherence of communication activities and
the assessment of the implementation of the objective relating to
building a positive image of the company among employees through
internal communication (r = 0.519);
236 Communication in Organizational Environments

• overall assessment of coherence and the assessment of the implementa-

tion of the objective relating to motivating employees to work for the
benefit of the organization through internal communication (r =
0.478).

When analysing correlations for the specific employee segments it is

evident that although all the correlations are statistically significant, they
differ in strength. In the Task-oriented segment, the correlations between
the achievement of internal communication objectives and the assess-
ment of the coherence of internal communication are markedly weaker.
In the Relationship-oriented and Balanced segments the strength of the
correlations are comparable.
The fact that statistically significant correlations between the variables
examined were observed confirms that building and managing the image
of an organization are important areas of communication activities. The
way in which employees perceive the company in which they work affects
its external image. Therefore, efforts should be made to achieve maximum
coherence between the two. It is interesting to observe that in the Task-
oriented segment the correlation between the achievement of internal
communication objectives and the assessment of the coherence of inter-
nal communication is markedly weaker than in the other two segments.
Internal marketing communication (addressed to employees) can be
analysed in terms of the objectives it is expected to fulfil. Employees
believe that the most important of these is providing the staff with spe-
cific information about the company and its offering. Next come activi-
ties related to the perception of the company among its employees and
the impact on employee behaviour in relations with customers. The
objective regarded as the least important one was encouraging employees
to take advantage of the company’s offering. It should be noted that not
all the surveyed companies operate in the B2C market, which means that
their products or services are not addressed to retail clients and thus are
of no interest to the staff.
Analysing the differences between segments, it is worth noting the rel-
atively lower importance of information about the company’s offering in
the Relationship-oriented segment (see Table 6.8). Employees belonging
to this group also show a radically different perception of encouraging
employees to take advantage of the company’s offering (22% considered
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 237

Table 6.8 Hierarchy of importance of internal marketing communication objec-

tives (the lower the value, the more important the objective)
Relationship- Task-
Total Balanced oriented oriented
Conveying to employees specific 2.11 2.08 2.42 1.99
information about the company and
its offering
Influencing the behaviour and 2.42 2.46 2.40 2.39
attitudes of employees in their
relations with customers
Creating and consolidating a positive 2.34 2.36 2.22 2.38
image of the organisation among
staff
Encouraging employees to take 3.13 3.11 2.96 3.23
advantage of the company's offering
Source: Own research

this to be the most important objective) in comparison to the Task-

oriented segment (for them this objective was the least important).
It is worth noting that the realization of all the objectives is at a similar
level: the employees’ ratings range between 3.10 and 3.23 on a five-point
scale, where 1 stood for “very bad” and 5 for “very good.”
The correlation analyses conducted, supplemented with additional
elements, permit an attempt to describe the effectiveness of internal
communication in a single model. Assuming a directional nature for cor-
relations, the comprehensive effectiveness of internal communication can
be expressed in the form of the following function:

CEIC = f ( LE;;LQ;;EIMC ) ,

where

CEIC—comprehensive effectiveness of internal communication

LE—level of efficiency of communication
LQ—level of quality of communication
EIMC—effectiveness of internal marketing communication.
238 Communication in Organizational Environments

Table 6.9 Regression model for the comprehensive effectiveness of internal

communication
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) −0.711 0.188 −3.779 0.000
LE 0.323 0.032 0.283 10.183 0.000
LQ 0.143 0.072 0.055 1.986 0.048
EIMC 0.853 0.049 0.424 17.535 0.000
Source: Own research

Regression analysis confirms the existence of such a model, and all the
indicated items turn out to be statistically significant. The model has a
good fit as it explains 41% of variance. The comprehensive effectiveness
of internal communication is most strongly affected by the effectiveness
of internal marketing communication (the Beta parameter equals 0.424,
which means that a change in EIMC of one standard deviation changes
CEIC by 0.424 of a standard deviation). The effectiveness of internal
communication is also quite highly sensitive to the efficiency of commu-
nication within organizations (Beta equals 0.283). The factor which has
a minimum influence on the effectiveness of internal communication is
the quality of communication in the enterprise (Beta equals 0.055) (see
Table 6.9).
This regression model confirms the findings of the analysis of correlation
between efficiency, quality, and effectiveness. The factor that to the great-
est extent determines the comprehensive effectiveness of internal com-
munication is the effectiveness of marketing communication addressed to
employees. The level of efficiency is the second most important factor, and
the quality of communication is third. With well diagnosed independent
variables, the model enables an effective allocation of resources to improve
the comprehensive effectiveness of internal communication.
The regression models obtained for the various employee segments
reveal some differences in the impact of the variables affecting the effec-
tiveness of internal communication (see Table 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12). For
the Balanced and Relationship-oriented segments, the models have a bet-
ter fit (they explain respectively 62% and 56% of variance); whereas for
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 239

Table 6.10 Regression models for the comprehensive effectiveness of internal

communication for Balanced segment
Standardized
Unstandardized coefficients coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) −2.021 0.282 −7.172 0.000
EIMC 1.134 0.068 0.539 16.687 0.000
LE 0.279 0.047 0.236 5.919 0.000
LQ 0.339 0.112 0.121 3.026 0.003
Source: Own research

Table 6.11 Regression model for the comprehensive effectiveness of internal

communication for Relationship-oriented segment
Standardized
Unstandardized coefficients coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) −1.003 0.208 −4.828 0.000
EIMC 1.018 0.081 0.536 12.619 0.000
LE 0.392 0.042 0.391 9.216 0.000
Source: Own research

Table 6.12 Regression model for the comprehensive effectiveness of internal

communication— for Task-oriented segment
Standardized
Unstandardized coefficients coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 0.531 0.207 2.562 0.011
EIMC 0.553 0.083 0.280 6.665 0
LE 0.358 0.049 0.307 7.321 0
Source: Own research

the Task-oriented segment the fit of the model is worse (it explains only
26% of variance). However, with a research sample of 1354 respondents
the fit can be considered to be good.
In the Relationship-oriented segment, the effectiveness of internal com-
munication is explained by two variables, as LQ proved not to be statisti-
240 Communication in Organizational Environments

cally significant. The impact of EIMC is similar as in the previous models,

but the level of efficiency plays a much greater role (Beta = 0.391). In the
Task-oriented segment, the model also contains two variables. However,
in this case the variable with the greatest impact on the effectiveness
of internal communication is the efficiency of communication within
the organization (Beta = 0.307). In the regression model for the Task-
oriented segment, the effectiveness of internal marketing communication
is slightly less important (Beta = 0.280).
Based on the findings presented in this chapter, it was concluded that
the principal aim of internal marketing communication activities should
be to properly inform employees about the offering of their company.
What is more, in order to win them over as ambassadors of the company
it is necessary to create an appropriate work atmosphere and build a posi-
tive image of the company among the staff, so long as it is coherent with
the external image of the organization. Internal communication fulfils
an important role in this process. In addition, the study confirmed the
existence of connections between internal and external communication,
as well as identifying areas where low ratings given to coherence indicate
the need for taking corrective action.

6.5 Towards a New Paradigm of Corporate

Communication?5
An organization cannot properly function without communicating with
the environment. It should be noted that the environment is understood
as various groups of stakeholders rather than being limited only to cus-
tomers. In recent years, corporate communication has been changing
dynamically. The main reasons for this are the intensive development of
technology, progressive globalization, as well as social transformations,
leading to changes in people’s attitudes and behaviour in relation to both
consumption and communication. As a result, techniques, strategies, and

5
This subsection is based on the following paper: Rogala A., 2015, Towards a New Paradigm
of Integrated Marketing Communication, 2nd Dubrovnik International Economic Meeting (DIEM
2015), Scientific Conference of Innovation, Leadership and Entrepreneurship—Challenges
of Modern Economy, pp. 698–710.
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 241

principles of communicating with the environment need to be adapted

to the current reality. Therefore, it has become necessary to revise the
assumptions of IMC.
Over the last decades the social sphere has been undergoing intensive
transformations. From the perspective of marketing activity, the most
significant social-cultural trends are growing consumptionism, the ecolo-
gization of consumption, the virtualization of life, home-centrism, and a
shift from individualism to newly defined tribalism (Kacprzak-Choińska
2007, p. 15). In modern societies one can observe strong consumption-
ist attitudes, characterized by materialism, a tendency to buy to show
off, seeking happiness in buying various products and services, as well as
addiction to compulsive shopping. The opposite of consumptionism is
the trend in the ecologization of consumption, which involves balanced,
conscious, safe, and healthy purchasing behaviour. It is manifested by,
among other things, the process of deconsumption, that is, limiting con-
sumption to a reasonable size. Another trend is the virtualization of life,
that is, shifting various types of needs from public institutions to people’s
homes, the growing significance of indirect relations, as well as shopping
via the Internet instead of using bricks-and-mortar stores (Patrzałek 2004,
p. 34). The result is the increasing phenomenon of home-centrism—
bringing everyday life home and spending time in front of a computer,
as well as home consumption. By means of the latest technologies people
fulfil their needs for social connections by building their relationships in
the virtual world on the Internet. However, the growing popularity of
social networks is a sign of tribalism, which is a shift from individualism
to creating new, virtual communities.
The progressive virtualization of life, the development of information
technologies and the media which enable the forming of virtual commu-
nities may create the impression that the information age is nearing its
end. According to Fidelman, the year 2010 marked the beginning of the
social media age, which emerged as a response to the excess of informa-
tion which had an overwhelming effect on people (2014, p. 28). Seeking
opportunities to prioritize and find sense in the available information,
people turned to social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn,
and YouTube. Fidelman argues that maintaining competitiveness and
effective communication in today’s world is possible only under the con-
242 Communication in Organizational Environments

dition of integration and by acting within the above-mentioned social

media.
The development of technology has undoubtedly brought about
significant changes concerning lifestyles and ways of communicating,
especially in relation to the globalization and computerization of the
modern world. It has also contributed to the emergence of a new con-
cept of society—the network society. It is based on the network of social
relations, but also on the free access of an individual to social groups,
organizations, and interest groups (Castells 2008). From the point of
view of marketing communication management, the essential aspect of
the network society is its ability to organize new and complex informa-
tion relationships (e.g. by means of digital communication) (Stachowicz
2011, p. 202). In this way, messages sent by individuals spread extremely
quickly within the network, and a single opinion may influence many
other people’s opinions. As a result, individuals are the senders of content
modified in a way that reflects their own outlook. Marketing messages
undergo the same process.
Persuading potential buyers to accept a company’s market offering is to
a lesser and lesser extent based on marketing activities, including the tra-
ditionally understood marketing communication. Today it mainly relies
on forming ties with customers (e.g. by sharing their values and beliefs),
as well as on maintaining the relationship, especially in the virtual sphere.
Due to the progress of technology and the broad access to information,
customers constantly demand a response to their communication needs
relating to the market offering, and they expect companies to be trans-
parent in all areas of their activity. What is more, nowadays consum-
ers trust their acquaintances and friends—both real and virtual—more
than companies. Therefore, traditional methods of promotion are los-
ing their appeal, as the most important conversations take place between
consumers, not between a company and a consumer (Consumer 2020…,
p. 17–21). It should also be stressed that at present consumers are no
longer passive recipients of information; because many of them not
only actively create various types of content, but also build communities
around ideas, beliefs, or even specific products or services. That is why
customers are not only supporters or critics of brands, but they also play
a part in the development of the market offering, especially in the case
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 243

of companies they feel related to. All the above-mentioned phenomena

have specific implications for the communication activities of companies.
In the traditional approach, marketing communication is initiated
and managed by organizations which control their own interactions with
consumers. However, in 2006 it became clear that there is a need to
adopt a new approach, whereby the customer is an active part of the
process. This stems from the fact that the integration of various types of
messages takes place on the recipient’s side (Schultz 2006, p. 7). It should
be emphasized that this is true of both the messages which are planned
and initiated by a company and the so-called invisible communication.
This occurs when, from the point of view of a company, no information
about the organization or its offering is communicated, but from the
point of view of a customer such information is revealed. Such invis-
ible communication has a growing influence on the behaviour of recipi-
ents, and therefore identifying and understanding it is a real challenge for
those involved in the management of corporate communication. It is a
very important fact that customers integrate messages regardless of their
source, prioritizing them as they wish, trusting some sources and reject-
ing others (Finne and Strandvik 2012, p. 121). Thus they play an active
role in the integration of messages; also those of a marketing nature.
The integration of corporate communication from the point of view of
a company differs from the integration of messages conducted by recipi-
ents. First of all, companies focus on the integration of channels, and the
integration of messages is limited to those of a marketing nature. Thus,
unconscious invisible communication and the messages which, in the
opinion of companies, are not directed at customers are disregarded. On
the other hand, at the stage of absorbing messages, recipients focus on the
integration of their content, and the selection of the integrated content
does not depend on who the addressee of the message is. The source of
the information plays a much more important role, and non-corporate
sources are valued more highly (Rogala and Wielicka 2015).
Moreover, from the perspective of a company, the integration of com-
munication takes place in a specific order and according to certain rules.
Among other things, it is assumed that the particular channels, tools,
and targets of communication activities are compatible. Nevertheless, it
is the recipient who selects and absorbs messages on the basis of their own
244 Communication in Organizational Environments

expectations and preferences. It is the recipient who decides about what,

when, and how they will obtain information, and also which sources they
will trust. In this age of a network society, various types of communi-
ties are opinion leaders. As a result, the integration of information often
takes place not at the level of an individual, but of a community, usually
a virtual one.
Organizations aim at making their marketing messages compatible
and not mutually exclusive. However, today’s recipients expect more.
The cohesion of the marketing communication at the declarative level is
insufficient. They want each message sent by an organization, regardless
of its character and its recipients as well as each aspect of the company’s
activities, to be consistent with the declared values (Yeboah 2013, p. 86).
What is more, consumers expect a company and its staff to not only prac-
tice the declared values, but also truly believe in them.
The transformations taking place in the social, technological, and infor-
mational spheres lead to the conclusion that it is justified to treat corpo-
rate communication as a whole, which means that all the communication
activities undertaken by a company should be integrated into one coher-
ent message. This is particularly significant in view of, on the one hand,
the universal access to information, the speed of information flow, the
democratization of the media, and the growing popularity of social
media; and, on the other hand, the declining interest and confidence in
traditionally understood marketing. Therefore, from the perspective of
companies, integration is now an extremely difficult process to manage,
mainly due to the increasing role of invisible communication in shaping
responses to messages, and also because of the impact of online social
communities on the way target audiences select and receive messages.
The changes in the behaviour of today’s consumers imply the neces-
sity of modifying the IMC concept in such a way that it will be capable
of meeting the challenges it faces. The majority of these are related to
the previously mentioned information and media revolution. One of the
challenges is the need to adapt the communication tools employed to the
preferences of the recipients. This stems from the fact that the traditional
forms of communication are losing their attractiveness and, consequently,
their effectiveness, whereas the number of online message recipients and
users of smartphones, tablets, and mobile applications is growing (Kotler
et al. 2010, p. 20). Moreover, the position of consumers as participants in
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 245

the marketing communication process has also strengthened. They are no

longer mere recipients but also co-creators of the content because of their
activities in the virtual sphere—on social networks, forums, blogs, or
video blogs (Rogala 2014). The important fact is that the content posted
by other consumers is considered more reliable than the marketing mes-
sages issued and managed by an organization. Therefore, it is necessary to
constantly monitor the messages published in the virtual sphere. At the
same time, however, it has to be remembered that a company has very
limited possibilities to control them.
Regardless of whether recipients deal with communication that is
planned and controlled by companies or is random and informal, the
message should be coherent and unambiguous. This is also true of com-
munication with employees, whose attitudes and opinions play a sig-
nificant role in the process of marketing communication. This can be
explained by the fact that a company’s internal communication shapes
the internal image of the organization, the employees’ knowledge about
their company’s offering and their willingness to recommend it, as well as
their readiness to recommend the company as an employer. Moreover, on
the basis of the research conducted by the authors, it was established that
there are statistically significant positive correlations between the achieve-
ment of internal communication objectives and the assessment of the
coherence of internal and external communication in specific aspects, as
well as between the overall assessment of internal communication effec-
tiveness and the evaluation of the coherence of comprehensive commu-
nication activities. Consequently, internal communication plays a role in
shaping employees’ attitudes in relation to both the organization and the
world outside it. Therefore, from the point of view of the integration of
organizational communication, it is essential to ensure the coherence of
these attitudes.
In its present understanding, marketing communication needs to be
coherent. This coherence is seen by Cornelissen and Lock as the prom-
ise of “order, stability and predictability in an otherwise fragmented
and confusing world” (2000). Lost in the information jungle and con-
fused by often mutually exclusive messages, a consumer will appreciate
a communication strategy which is homogeneous and consistent with
the organization’s values. This view is shared by Porcu et al., who claim
that the main objective of IMC is consistent, transparent, and synergis-
246 Communication in Organizational Environments

tic communication of messages to various groups of stakeholders. The

authors point to the four basic dimensions of IMC (Porcu et al. 2012,
pp. 326–329): “one voice”, interactivity, cross-functional planning, and
profitable long-term relationships (the higher strategic dimension, rep-
resenting the main purpose of internal marketing communication). The
implementation of this concept of communication activities enables an
organization to build profitable relationships with the outside commu-
nity. In this multifunctional and interdisciplinary approach, taking the
organization as a whole as the point of reference, the integration deter-
mines the competitive advantage. This is achieved due to the interactiv-
ity and optimization of relationships between messages, channels, and
recipients, not just the coordination of particular elements of the market-
ing mix.
Over the years, the IMC concept evolved from an approach assum-
ing the integration of activities related to advertising, sales promotion,
and public relations, towards treating an organization’s communication
as a whole. However, it also seems necessary to include in these consid-
erations the shifts in the roles played in the processes of communication
and integration by both the organization and its various stakeholders.
In these times of advancing informatization, globalization, and virtual-
ization, integration seems to be the most sensible method of corporate
communication management. For the time being, however, it is only
an ideal, a target which a company should strive for but which for the
moment is unattainable (Christensen et al. 2009, pp. 207–208). It would
be difficult to assume that an organization can manage to integrate all the
communication acts it participates in (including those within invisible
communication), as well as the messages created by the former recipients
of marketing communication. Nevertheless, in spite of these difficulties,
companies should not feel excused from undertaking efforts aimed at
ensuring the coherence of all their communication activities, with par-
ticular emphasis on those related to corporate image.

References
Armstrong, M. (2011). Zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi. Warsaw: Oficyna a
Wolters Kluwer business.
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 247

Asif, S., & Sargeant, A. (2000). Modelling internal communications in the

financial services sector. European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 299–318.
Baker, S., & Mitchell, H. (2000). Integrated marketing communication:
Implications for managers. Amsterdam: European Society for Opinion and
Marketing Research (November).
Baruk, A. (2006). Marketing personalny jako instrument kreowania wizerunku
firmy. Warsaw: Difin.
Baruk, A. (2008). Postmodernistyczne koncepcje marketingowe a marketing klasyc-
zny. Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe Organizacji i Kierownictwa “Dom
Organizatora”.
Blythe, J. (2002). Komunikacja marketingowa. Warsaw: Polskie Wydawnictwo
Ekonomiczne.
Bsoul, M. (2003). Wewnętrzne public relations jako czynnik decydujący o
rynkowym powodzeniu przedsiębiorstwa. In D. Tworzydło (Ed.), Public rela-
tions—materiały z II Kongresu PR. Rzeszów: WSIiZ.
Budzyński, W. (2003). Wizerunek firmy. Kreowanie, zarządzanie, efekty. Warsaw:
Wydawnictwo POLTEXT.
Castells, M. (2008). Społeczeństwo sieci. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Christensen, L. T., & Askegaard, S. (2001). Corporate identity and corporate
image revisited. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 292–315.
Christensen, L. T., Firat, A. F., & Torp, S. (2008). The organisation of integrated
communications: Toward flexible integration. European Journal of Marketing,
42(3–4), 423–452.
Christensen, L.T., Firat, A. F., & Cornelissen, J. (2009). New tensions and chal-
lenges in integrated communications. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 14(2), 207–219.
Consumer 2020: Reading the signs. (2012). Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Tanzania/Local%20Assets/
Documents/Deloitte%20Reports%20-%20Consumer%202020.pdf .
Accessed November 2015.
Cornelissen, J. (2001). Integrated marketing communications and the language
of market development. International Journal of Advertising, 20(4), 483–499.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Lock, A. R. (2000). Theoretical concept or management
fashion? Examining the significance of IMC. Journal of Advertising Research,
40(5), 7–15.
De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van den Bergh, J. (2007). Marketing com-
munications: A European perspective. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Dortok, A. (2006). A managerial look at the interaction between internal communica-
tion and corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(4), 322–338.
248 Communication in Organizational Environments

Duncan, T., & Caywood, C. (1996). The concept, process, and evolution of
integrated marketing communication. In E. Thorson & J. Moore (Eds.),
Integrated communication: Synergy of persuasive voices (pp. 13–34). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duncan, T., & Mulhern, F. (2004). A white paper on the status, scope and future
of IMC. New York: McGraw Hill.
Egan, J. (2007). Marketing communications. London: Thomson Learning.
Ferdous, A. S. (2008). Integrated internal marketing communication. The
Marketing Review, 8(3), 223–235.
Fidelman, M. (2014). Socialized! W jaki sposób najskuteczniej wykorzystać
społeczność internetową. Biznes społecznościowy.. Warsaw: CeDeWu.pl.
Finne, A., & Strandvik, T. (2012). Invisible communication: A challenge to
established marketing communication. European Business Review, 24(2),
120–133.
Finney, S. (2011). Stakeholder perspective on internal marketing communica-
tion. Business Process Management Journal, 17(2), 311–331.
Hardaker, S., & Fill, C. (2005). Corporate services brands: The intellectual and
emotional engagement of employees. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4),
365–376.
Kacprzak-Choińska, A. (2007). Konsument ponowoczesny. Nowe trendy w zach-
owaniach nabywczych i ich konsekwencje dla marketingu. Studia i Materiały—
Wydział Zarządzania UW, No. 2, pp. 14–20.
Kitchen, P. J., & Schultz, D. E. (1999). A multi-country comparison of the
drive for IMC. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(1), 21–38.
Kitchen, P. J., Brignell, J., Li, T., & Jones, G. S. (2004). The emergence of IMC:
A theoretical perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(1), 19–30.
Kliatchko, J. (2005). Towards a definition of integrated marketing communica-
tions (IMC). International Journal of Advertising Research, 24(1), 7–34.
Koekemoer, L. (Ed.). (2005). Marketing communications. Lansdowne: Juta and
Co Ltd.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing. Poznań: Rebis.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2010). Marketing 3.0: Dobry produkt?
Zadowolony klient? Spełniony człowiek! Warsaw: MT Biznes.
Krawiec, F. (2009). Kreowanie i zarządzanie reputacją firmy. Warsaw: Difin.
Low, G. S. (2000). Correlates of integrated marketing communications. Journal
of Advertising Research, 40(3), 27–39.
Olsztyńska, A. (2005). Marketing wewnętrzny w przedsiębiorstwie: koncepcja i
narzędzia wspomagające integrację działań wewnętrznych organizacji. Poznań:
Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej.
 6 Internal and External Communication: In Search of Coherence 249

Patrzałek, W. (2004). Czynniki kulturowe a zachowania konsumenckie. In

W. Patrzałek (Ed.), Kulturowe determinanty zachowań konsumenckich
(pp. 11–37). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
Penc, J. (1997). Leksykon biznesu. Warsaw: Agencja Wydawnicza Placet.
Porcu, L., del Barrio-Garcia, S., & Kitchen, P. (2012). How integrated market-
ing communications (IMC) works? A theoretical review and an analysis of its
main drivers and effects. Comunicacion Y Sociedad, XXV(1), 313–348.
Prymon, M. (2011). O pewnych przesłankach tworzenia zintegrowanej komunikacji
marketingowej. In Komunikacja rynkowa. Strategie i instrumenty, B. Pilarczyk
(Ed.), Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu nr 208.
Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.
Rafiq, M., & Ahmed, P. K. (2000). Advances in the internal marketing con-
cepts: Definition, synthesis and extension. Journal of Services Marketing,
14(6), 249–262.
Reid, M., Luxton, S., & Mavondo, F. (2005). The relationship between inte-
grated marketing communication, market orientation, and brand orienta-
tion. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 11–23.
Rogala, A. (2010). Rola komunikacji wewnętrznej w procesie kształtowania wiz-
erunku firmy. In Komunikacja rynkowa. Ewolucja—wyzwania—szanse,
B. Pilarczyk, Z. Waśkowski (Eds.), Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu
Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu nr 135. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.
Rogala, A. (2014). Wyzwania zintegrowanej komunikacji marketingowej w dobie
społeczeństwa informacyjnego, Marketing i Rynek, No. 11. Warsaw: Polskie
Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, 57–65.
Rogala A. (2015a). Towards a new paradigm of integrated marketing communica-
tion. 2nd Dubrovnik International Economic Meeting (DIEM 2015), Scientific
Conference of Innovation, Leadership & Entrepreneurship—Challenges of
Modern Economy. Dubrovnik: University of Dubrovnik. 698–710.
Rogala, A. (2015b). The dependencies between internal and external communica-
tion of the organization—the problem of coherence. Paper for 15th Eurasia
Business and Economics Society (EBES) Conference, Lisbon, January 2015.
Rogala, A., & Kaniewska-Sęba, A. (2013). Internal communication as a market-
ing communications tool. In F. Conchon (Ed.), 13th International marketing
trends conference. Paris: ESCP-AEP European School of Management.
Rogala, A., & Wielicka-Regulska, A. (2015). Ewolucja w komunikowaniu się z
rynkiem – jak pogodzić interesy organizacji z oczekiwaniami współczesnych
odbiorców? Logistyka, No. 2. Poznań: Instytut Logistyki i Magazynowania w
Poznaniu, pp. 1339–1345.
250 Communication in Organizational Environments

Rozwadowska, B. (2002). Public relations. Teoria, praktyka, perspektywy (Wyd.

1). Warsaw: Studio EMKA.
Rydel, M. (Ed.). (2001). Komunikacja marketingowa, wydanie I. Gdańsk:
ODDK.
Schultz, D. (2006). Consumers control integration, not marketers. Marketing
News, March 15.
Schwan, K., & Seipel, K. G. (1997). Marketing kadrowy. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo
C.H Beck.
Shultz, D. E. (2004). Building an internal marketing management calculus.
Interactive Marketing, 6(2), 111–130.
Smith, P. R., Berry, C., & Pulford, A. (2002). Strategic marketing communica-
tions: New ways to build and integrate communications. London: Kogan Page
Limited.
Stachowicz, J. (2011). Globalne sieci przepływu kapitału, wiedzy oraz wartości
jako kluczowe wyzwanie w zarządzaniu przedsiębiorstwami. Zeszyty Naukowe
Polskiego Towarzystwa Ekonomicznego, No. 9, 201–214.
Thomson, K., & Hecker, L. A. (2000). The business value of buy-in. In R. J.
Varey & B. R. Lewis (Eds.), Internal marketing: Directions for management.
London: Routledge.
Torp, S. (2009). Integrated communications: From one look to normative con-
sistency. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(2),
190–206.
Trębecki, J. (2012). Konwergencja obszarów komunikowania wewnętrznego.
Ujęcie teoretyczne i empiryczne. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.
Wiktor, J. W. (2001). Promocja. System komunikacji przedsiębiorstwa z rynkiem.
Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Wiktor, J. W. (2011). Komunikacja marketingowa – perswazja czy manipulacja?
W stronę reguły 30–70. In: Komunikacja rynkowa. Strategie i instrumenty.
B. Pilarczyk (ed). Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu
nr 208. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.
Yeboah, A. (2013). Integrated marketing communication: How can it influence
customer satisfaction? European Journal of Business and Management, 5(2), 41–57.
Zajkowska, M. (2011) Deficyty komunikacyjne jako determinanta implementacji
integracji komunikacji przedsiębiorstwa. In Komunikacja rynkowa. Strategie i
instrumenty, B. Pilarczyk (Ed.), Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu
Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu nr 208. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.
 Index1

B functions, 65, 72, 161

Bateson, G., 19 internal, xxi–xxv, 24, 29–61,
Beavin, J., 19, 20 65–94, 117, 125, 130, 133n6,
Berlo, D.K., 24, 184 134, 136, 138, 142–7,
Bohn, T., 24 151–203, 207–46
invisible, 243, 244, 246
models, xxiii, 15, 17, 21, 24, 184
C needs, xxiii, 29, 35–8, 55, 113,
coherence 155, 167, 242, 245
assessment, 232, 235 organizational needs, 1–25,
internal and external 29–61, 65–94, 99–147,
communication, 207–46 151–203, 207–46
communication process, xxi–xxiii, 1, 4, 6, 8, 9,
audit, 117, 167–70 11–25, 36, 38–40, 43–51, 53,
behaviours, 99–147, 185 70–2, 75, 90, 108–10, 114,
behaviours typology, 99, 108–17 117, 119, 123, 125, 126, 129,
competence, 120, 122 131–3, 147, 153, 156–67, 169,
external, 37, 43, 207–46 174, 180, 183, 185, 188, 190,
features, 7 199, 203, 212, 227, 232, 244

1
Note: Page number followed by ‘n’ refers to footnotes.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 251

A. Rogala, S. Bialowas, Communication in Organizational
Environments, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54703-3
252 Index

communication (cont.) I
pyramid, 47, 48 image, xxiv, xxv, 34, 37, 43, 59, 67,
styles, 110, 114, 132 72, 80, 82–8, 94, 154, 161,
term, 1–9 163, 178, 186, 199, 207,
communicational personalities, 111 209–13, 216, 218, 220–2,
communication science 224, 225, 228, 229, 232–4,
orientations, 9–14 235–7, 240, 245, 246
theories, 9–14 individual factors, 133, 134, 137,
traditions, 9–14 141, 146, 190
communicative abilities, 180, 181, information
187, 195, 199, 201 vs communication, 6, 8, 9, 16, 18,
corporate communication, xxiv, xxv, 22, 23, 25, 29, 36–55, 59–61,
42, 43, 82, 130, 207, 216 67–75, 79–87, 89–94, 106–8,
coherence, 240–6 113, 114, 117, 123, 125–7,
consistency, 92, 153, 163, 207, 129, 130, 143, 146, 151–3,
220, 221, 233, 235 155, 157–73, 181, 183–5,
integration, 243 187, 195, 199, 208, 212, 214,
paradigm, 240–6 217–220, 222, 228, 233, 234,
correlation analysis, 79 236, 241–5
Craig, R.T., 10–12, 14 types, xxiii, 29, 44–7
integrated index, xxiv, 151, 188–203
components, 156–66, 200–1
D evaluation, 156–66
demographic characteristics, 78 integrated marketing
descriptive statistics, 79 communication, xxv, 207,
215, 217
internal communication
E barriers, 89–94
external marketing communication, bottlenecks, 65
220 comprehensive effectiveness, 238,
239
determinants, xxii, xxiv, 151–203
G directions, xxiii, 29, 164
Griffin, E., 38 efficiency, 186
group factors, 133, 134, 163 effectiveness, 134, 135, 139–41,
151–203, 238, 239
evaluation, xxiv, 151, 156–66,
H 201
hierarchy of importance, 135–40, factors, 72, 73, 93–4, 151,
147, 237 152, 163
 Index 253

forms, 29, 47–55, 142 levels of management, 50, 78

functions, 65–94 Lewin, K., 16, 17, 183
hard objectives, 83
instruments, 55–61
integrated approach, 42, 43, M
156–66, 178, 180, 190 MacLean, M., 22–4, 184
levels, 47–55, 178 manufacturing companies, 78, 80,
measuring instrument, 151, 136, 220
192–4, 201 marketing communication, xxii, xxiv,
model, 15–25, 151, 170–88 xxv, 79–81, 207, 213–20,
networks, 126 236–8, 240, 242, 244–6
objectives, 65–94 McQuail, D., 47, 48
quality, 156, 164–6, 181, 182, methodology of research, 76–81
186, 187, 199, 238 model of communication
segments, 86–8, 224 Berlo’s, 24
soft objective, 83 concentric HUB, 24, 25, 184
standardised index of satisfaction, Lasswell's, 17, 18
189–91, 195, 199 Lazarsfeld and Katz’s, 21, 22
sub-objectives, 72, 161 Lewin’ s, 16, 17
term, 40, 41 in organization, 184
internal marketing, 66, 208–14 Riley and Riley’s, 23
internal marketing communication, Rogala’s, 184
xxiv, 81, 207, 219, 220, Schramm’s, 21, 183
236–8, 240, 246 Shannon and Weaver's, 18
internal public relations, xxii, 56, 66, Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson's, 20
208–14, 219 Westley and MacLean’s, 22

J O
Jackson, D., 19, 20 online survey, 77, 79
Jakobson, R., 72, 73 organizational
environment, 1–25, 29–61, 65–94,
99–147, 151–203, 207–46
K factors, 128, 133, 137, 138
Katz, E., 21, 22 organizational behaviours, xxii, 71,
108, 114, 146
communication, 118
L determinants, 30, 99–103
Lasswell, H.D., 17, 183 model, 102
Lazarsfeld, P., 21, 22 types, 103–7
254 Index

P segment
Pacanowsky, M., 39 balanced, 142, 146, 224, 236,
Pearson’s R correlation coefficient, 239
178–83, 187, 188, 234–8 relationship oriented, 142, 146,
personality, 8, 13, 41, 44, 51, 89, 109, 224, 236, 238, 239
118, 120, 121, 132–41, 146, task-oriented, 141, 142,
174–7, 185, 187, 211, 228 146, 224, 233, 236,
personnel marketing, 66, 208–14, 219 238, 239
praxeology, 161 7S model, 31, 32
Shannon, C., 5, 12, 18, 19, 183
Spearman’s rank correlation
Q coefficient, 84
qualitative methods, 188
quantitative methods, 76, 77
T
traditional survey, 77
R triangulation, 76
regression model, xxv, 207, 238–40
Riley, J., 23
Riley, M., 23 U
Rogala, A., 76n2, 112, 113, 183, Unguraita, D., 24
184, 188, 191, 195, 199
Rogers, C., 11, 39
W
Watzlawick, P., 19, 20
S Weaver, W., 5, 12, 18, 21, 183
sample, 77–9, 233, 238 Weick, K., 39
Schramm, W., 21, 183 Westley, B., 22–4, 184