Internal communication Definition parame

Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 223– 230
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Internal communication: Definition, parameters, and the future夽
Ana Tkalac Verˇ ciˇ ca,1, Dejan Verˇ ciˇ cb,∗, Krishnamurthy Srirameshc,2
aMarketing
Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Trg J. F. Kennedyja 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
bMarketing
Communication and Public Relations Department, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
cSchool
of Communication, Journalism, and Marketing, Massey University, Private Bag 756, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords:
Internal
communication
Public
relations
Corporate
communication
Employee
communication
Strategic
communication
Communication
management
Human
resources
Internal
marketing
Culture
and internal communication
a b s t r a c t
As an organizational function, internal communication is gaining in importance, meriting
a
special issue on the topic. This importance is evident in many recent efforts among prac-
titioners
in Europe and the US to seek recognition of this field as an independent domain.
Scholarship
on internal communication has not kept pace with these initiatives. This intro-
duction
to the special issue addresses several key issues related to this topic and presents
findings
from a Delphi study of the leaders of European associations on internal com-
munication.
Results of the study are fuzzy: respondents see internal communication as
interdisciplinary
management function integrating elements of human resources manage-
ment,
communication and marketing, but at the same time they see it primarily as a part of
the
organization’s communication function that is simultaneously managerial and techni-
cal.
However, they contend that internal communication is an independent research field.
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction
Internal
communication is among the fastest growing specializations in public relations and communication manage-
ment.
Its rise began in the 1990s in the US and spread thereafter to Europe growing strength in the new millennium. A host
of
factors such as globalization, deregulation, and economic crises brought with them permanent restructuring, downsizing,
outsourcing,
mergers and acquisitions and other kinds of more or less creative destruction. These further resulted in a drastic
reduction
of trust employees have in management leading to lower employee loyalty despite the increased need for the
strategic
management of a workforce that has been growing more diverse. Among the more competitive labor markets of
Asia
also, emotional engagement with employers has become an issue that demands deliberate management from organi-
zational
leaders. In short, internal communication has emerged as a critical function for organizations and thereby meriting
recognition
as a specialty in itself.
The
recognition of the importance of internal communication has resulted in a series of initiatives aimed at understanding
and
analyzing the field and advocating it as an independent domain. In 2010, practitioners of internal communica-
tion
in the UK set up the Institute of Internal Communication (www.ioic.org.uk) as a separate entity from the Chartered
夽The
authors would like to thank Fraser Likely, a partner and president of Likely Communication Strategies Ltd., for helpful comments on the previous
version
of the manuscript.
∗Corresponding
author. Tel.: [phone]; fax: [phone].
E-mail
addresses: [email protected] (A. Tkalac Verˇ ciˇ c),
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (D. Verˇ ciˇ c),
[email protected]
(K. Sriramesh).
1Tel.:
[phone].
2Tel.:
[phone]x62402.
0363-8111/$
– see front matter © 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.019

224 A. Tkalac Verˇ ciˇ c et al. / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 223– 230
Institute of Public Relations (www.cipr.co.uk), which has a space for internal communicators under the title CIPR Inside
(http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/member-groups/cipr-inside).
In continental Europe, the Institute of Internal Communication
is
leading a transformation of the Federation of European Business Communicators Associations (www.feiea.com) into a
European
association of internal communicators. A similar transformation is occurring in the US within the Council of
Communication
Management (www.ccmconnection.com). All these recent initiatives point to the recognition that internal
communication
is important and that it is a specialist domain unto itself.
However,
scholarship on internal communication has not kept pace with these initiatives from practitioners, which
prompted
us to set “internal communication” as the theme for the 18th International Public Relations Symposium (popularly
known
as Bledcom) in 2011. The conference call for papers elicited a record number of submissions from both academics
and
practitioners. Some of those papers, and others that emerged as a result of discussions during, and after, the conference
are
included in this special issue. In this section, we offer our own perspectives on this topic as the Organizing Committee of
BledCom
and co-editors of the special issue while also presenting results from a Delphi study of the eleven members of the
Federation
of European Business Communicators Associations (FEIEA). We hope that these findings, and this special issue,
not
only describe the status of the field but also serve as a catalyst for further research and debate on this topic in Europe
and
globally.
2.
Literature on internal communication
The
paucity of scholarship on internal communication within the public relations domain is a glaring lacuna that ought
to
be addressed. Communication is a central concept for organization and management theory (Thompkins, 1987) and much
of
the nascent research on this topic has emerged from scholars of organizational communication (Goldhaber, 1993; Jablin
&
Putnam, 2001; Jablin, Putnam, Roberts, & Porter, 1987) and organizational psychology (Drenth, Thierry, & de Wolf, 1988;
Lowenberg
& Conrad, 1998; Schein, 1988). Researchers of human resource issues see communication as a management
tool
(Heron, 1942; Fitz-enz, 1990; Lachotzki & Noteboom, 2005) while those interested in marketing perceive employees
as
internal customers and therefore have developed internal marketing to interact with employees (Ahmed & Rafiq, 2002;
Dunmore,
2002; Gummesson, 2000).
The
scant scholarship that exists on this subject in public relations views employees as internal stakeholders and so it
has
developed internal public relations (Seitel, 1989) or simply internal relations (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2006). Sowa (2005)
wrote:
“partnerships must be built with internal stakeholders” (p. 433). If there is a difference between public relations and
corporate
communication, that difference does not extend to the way the two fields view internal communication (Oliver,
1997;
Cornelissen, 2008). Internal communication is an essential element of change management (Carnall, 1999; Clarke,
1994;
Deetz, Tracy, & Simpson, 2000; Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992; Durig & Sriramesh, 2004).
We
disagree with the assertion of Cheney and Christensen (2001) that the fluidity of organizational environments
demands
internal and external communication to be integrated and that the difference between the two is becoming
meaningless
or even misleading. Empirical studies in applied communication among contemporary organizations report
that
internal communication is among the top five responsibility areas of public relations and communication management
practitioners.
This finding is consistent for studies conducted in Europe and the USA (Lurati, Aldyukhov, Dixius, & Reinhold,
2010;
Swerling et al., 2009; Zerfass, Tench, Verhoeven, Verˇ ciˇ c, & Moreno, 2010). We find that in practice, internal commu-
nication
is emerging as a specialization as evidenced by practitioner books on internal communication that have gone into
multiple
editions in a short span of time (Quirke, 2008; Smyth & Mounter, 2008).
Kalla
(2005) identified four domains within internal communication: business communication (concerned with communi-
cation
skills of employees), management communication (focused on management skills and capabilities for communication),
corporate
communication (focused on formal communication), and organizational communication (addressing more philo-
sophical
and theoretically oriented issues). Integrated internal communications subsume all four. While she uses the term in
the
plural form (internal communications), Berger (2008) refers to it in the singular as employee/organizational communica-
tion.
Welch and Jackson (2007) break down internal communication by stakeholder groups into four dimensions: internal
line
management communication, internal team peer communication, internal project peer communication and internal corpo-
rate
communication. Likely (2008, p. 15) based on a review of articles in the journal Strategic Communication Management
and
other publications oriented to internal communication, conferences and fora reported that the internal communication
function
operates five roles: “(1) communicator (reporter/facilitator/democrat); (2) educator (trainer/coach); (3) change
agent;
(4) communication consultant with a small ‘c’ (operational performance and process advisor); and (5) organizational
strategist
(relationship manager)”.
After
a thorough literature review, Grunig (1992, p. 575) concluded: “In spite of all of this research, however, we emerge
from
this section with little theoretical understanding of how internal communication makes organizations more effective”.
However,
in the two decades since he made that statement, several scholars have provided empirical evidence on the positive
relationship
between internal communication and organizational effectiveness (Hargie & Tourish, 1993; Dickinson, Rainey,
&
Hargie, 2003; Quinn & Hargie, 2004; Robson & Tourish, 2005). Clampitt and Downs (1993) claim that the main benefits
of
an internal communications audit include improved productivity, reduced absenteeism, higher quality of services and
products,
increased levels of innovation, fewer strikes and reduced costs. Almost three decades ago, Snyder and Morris (1984)
found
that two perceived communication variables (the quality of supervisory communication and information exchange

A. Tkalac Verˇ ciˇ c et al. / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 223– 230 225
within the peer work group) positively correlated with critical revenue and workload measures of overall organizational
performance.
3.
Internal communication: a Delphi study in Europe
This
literature review, the importance of this topic, and the lack of empirical research about it led the first two authors
to
conduct a Delphi study to determine the perspectives of the topic among representatives of national associations in the
Federation
of European Business Communicators Associations (FEIEA). We strongly feel that globalization requires us to
assess
all issues from a cross-national and cross-cultural perspective. In 2010, the FEIEA had eleven member associations:
Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the UK. The Czech Institute
of
Internal Communication (IIK) became an associate member in 2011 with a prospect of becoming a full member in 2012.
The
Delphi method has previously been used in public relations. White and Blamphin (1994) used it to study public relations
practice
in the UK, while Wakefield (2000) used it to study international public relations. The largest Delphi study in public
relations
was conducted in 1999 and 2000 as part of the European Public Relations Body of Knowledge (EBOK) seeking to
codify
the existing body of public relations literature in Europe and to enable its fuller use and application unhindered by
linguistic,
cultural and administrative barriers. Given the relative novelty of this field, we found it appropriate to use this
method
and sent the first set of questions via in November 2010 requesting responses within a month. However, it took
four
months to receive ten responses. Although our initial questions were in English, we received responses in English,
French,
and German requiring us to translate them into English before analysis. Based on these responses, a closed-item
questionnaire
was developed for a second Delphi round and distributed in June 2011 that elicited 8 responses. Based on
these
responses and other communication, we determined that a third wave was not pragmatic and we report findings from
these
two rounds with our own discussions next.
3.1.
Definition and parameters of the term
Internal
communication, often perceived as a synonym for intra-organizational communication, is quite often equated
with
employee communication. This was quite evident in the data from our Delphi analysis. Our Delphi respondents defined
“internal
communication” simply as all forms of communication within the organization. But, as we shall see in the next
pages,
there is a dire need to define or redefine the boundaries of an organization, which will also perhaps redefine the param-
eters
of internal communication. That apart, our respondents felt that internal communication should motivate employees
and
thus create value for the company. Interestingly, our data also indicated a narrow definition of the term in another way
–
a more tactical one – as the process of writing for the in-house employee publication. Today the information manager is
more
of a mediator between the management and workers, as well as being an internal coach for management. Aligning the
goals
of individual employees to organizational goals is also seen as a task for internal communication. Such alignment helps
organizations
build strong cultures. Internal communication is the aspiration (starting from the vision and proceeding to
policy
and mission statement and eventually to strategy) of achieving a systematic analysis and distribution of information
at
all strata simultaneously coordinated in the most efficient way possible.
After
the majority of our Delphi participants stated that internal communication includes the exchange of information
among
employees or members of an organization to create understanding, in the second round we asked respondents
to
describe what internal communication is for them. Most of the participants agreed that it is a management function
in-charge
of communication. In order to reach further understanding of the concept of internal communication we also
asked
the participants to tell as what they believe internal communications are in charge of. The highest level of agreement
(M
= 4.38) was with the statement that they are in charge of information dissemination. Participants had a slightly lesser
agreement
(M = 4.13) with the statement that IC is in charge of management and production of internal media, followed by
–
alignment of employees with organization’s purpose (M = 4.00). It seems that the one-way approach to communication is
the
predominant view among these experts. All of the other statements that were included in the questionnaire had a level
of
agreement that was over 3.00, implying that all of the statements describe internal communication to some extent. This
includes
– communication within organization (M = 3.88); organizational culture (M = 3.75); improvement of organization’s
communication
(M = 3.50); motivation of employees (M = 3.38); engagement of employees (M = 3.25); and finally – mediation
of
management and employees (M = 3.13), that had a mean only slightly above 3.00.
When
all of the described statements were viewed through the modal values it can be seen that only two statements –
IC
is in charge of information dissemination and IC is in charge of management and production of internal media – have the
modal
values of 5 (meaning that most participants completely agree with mentioned statements). However, the data also
suggest
that internal communications are still seen predominantly as a technical function.
What
is intriguing in the responses from both these rounds is that even though the respondents were all from Europe, end
therefore
exposed to multiculturalism, there was not a strong emphasis on the need to take culture into consideration. We
believe
that sooner than later, we need to recognize the reality that neither of the two entities in question here –
organization
and
employees –
is as homogeneous as one may tend to believe because of globalization and mobility of populations. The
formation
of trading blocs has resulted in countries trading not as independent entities but as conglomerates often sharing
the
manufacturing of a product among nations within the bloc. The European Union and Eurozone are prime examples of
this
and especially the Eurozone is currently having to come to grips with this heterogeneity and inequities. Globalization

226 A. Tkalac Verˇ ciˇ c et al. / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 223– 230
has extended the boundaries of organizations beyond national political borders and thus created and a heterogeneous
workforce
that calls for cross-cultural communication –a
complex process. So, we believe that the definition of the term
internal
communication needs to be addressed to reflect this reality. Doing so and setting cross-cultural parameters will
result,
in our view, in giving internal communication the recognition as an independent domain that it seeks.
3.2.
Relationship with other management disciplines
Just
as public relations are often juxtaposed with other management disciplines, one should analyze the link between
internal
communication. Our Delphi data revealed a host of areas that were perceived to be close to internal communi-
cation
such as human resources, change management, organization development, public relations, marketing and general
management,
corporate human resources, corporate strategy, and as the most logical partner – corporate
communication.
Internal
communication as a discipline is intertwined with these disciplines, particularly in the communications and human
resources
area. In the words of one of the respondents, the internal communication specialist should ideally be knowledge-
able
in multiple disciplines because only then can he/she be a valid partner to the management. Managerial activities cannot
be
properly performed without using internal communication to some extent. However, internal communication should
also
not be perceived as subordinate to any of the mentioned disciplines, except when management structures in a given
organization
place internal communication in a reporting line to one of them.
In
the second round we offered various options regarding the place that internal communication should hold in an
organization.
Most respondents agreed that internal communication is an interdisciplinary function integrating elements of
human
resources management, communication and marketing (M = 4.25). A relatively high level of agreement was connected
to
the view that IC is a part of public relations/corporate communication (M = 3.75). Even though the agreement with the
statement
that IC is a management function at the same level as marketing was slightly above average (M = 3.13), most of
the
respondents strongly disagreed with the idea that IC is a part of marketing (M = 2.00). These results reflect that there
is
a certain amount of overlap with human resources/corporate communication/public relations functions (although not so
much
with the marketing function), but it cannot be squeezed into any of those boxes and more and more deserves a box of
its
own.
3.3.
A theory-based practice?
The
theory vs. practice debate that often occurs in public relations is very evident in internal communication as well. Like
all
practice-oriented fields, theory can also help internal communication become more effective. However, the perception
regarding
the strength of the linkage between theory and practice is often based on who is being asked: scholars seem to
see
the link more strongly than practitioners. The Delphi responses, coming entirely from practitioners, suggested a weak
link
between theory and practice. Even so, most respondents cited management and psychological theories as beneficial
sources
for internal communication while some participants also saw the relevance of language studies, media work, and
marketing.
For the most part, participants agreed that IC is in the field of general communication, but with a significant
input
from management and human resources sciences. Interestingly, the relevance of public relations theories to IC was
identified
by only one participant. However, after conclusions from the first round were factored in reformulating statements
for
the second round, the level of agreement among participants increased. The two statements with the highest levels of
agreement
were: “IC is a practice-based discipline and draws from knowledge of many sciences” (M = 4.13) and “IC draws
from
communication science” (M = 4.13). Theories from psychology were perceived to have the least amount of influence
on
internal communication according to our respondents (M = 3.25). In order for the theory–practice link to be accepted
by
a greater number of practitioners, there needs to be more empirical research on the topic. Research that has predictive
capability
will be the best tool to impress upon practitioners that while “doing” is important, reflecting upon what is being
done
and then revising action based on reflection is the best recipe for efficacy.
3.4.
Knowledge-level and skills needed for internal communication
If
we agree that internal communication is a specialty, it behoves us to link specific knowledge and skills to this domain.
What
specific knowledge does a practitioner need to succeed in conducting internal communication and what skills should
one
have for the purpose? A knowledge–skill attributes were identified in the first round of our Delphi study such as knowl-
edge
of multiple languages, writing and editing, basic psychology, organizing events, communicating and understanding
different
cultures, understanding of various media (online, video, print, etc.), understanding of research techniques, change
management,
project management, marketing, work with media, branding and design. Most participants agreed that com-
munication
skills such as writing, speaking, oral presentations, gathering and analysing data, and knowledge of the Internet
were
helpful to internal communication experts. Whereas one of the participants stated that internal communication is all
about
journalism knowledge and “layouters,” most of the other respondents mentioned the importance of management
skills,
business skills and communication skills as being important.
In
round 2, we then offered a list of various types of skills and knowledge and asked the participants to rate these for impor-
tance
on a scale from 1 to 5. Most of the skills were rated as highly important. The highest level of agreements and the highest
overall
score was reached for communication skills (designing, presenting, speaking, writing,. . .) – (M = 4.88 and a modal

A. Tkalac Verˇ ciˇ c et al. / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 223– 230 227
Fig. 1. Knowledge and skills for internal communication.
value of 5). Other necessary skills were rated as follows: diplomacy and mediation skills (M = 4.63); general management
knowledge:
planning, organizing, executing, measuring (M = 4.50); strategic communication knowledge (audience segmen-
tation,
messaging, channel and media selection, communication audits) –(M
= 4.50); networking skills (M = 4.50); strategic
business
knowledge (M = 4.25); intercultural skills (M = 4.13); project management knowledge (M = 4.00); journalism skills
(M
= 4.00); business skills (M = 3.88) and coaching skills (M = 3.88) (Fig. 1).
We
believe the debate about strategies vs. tactics parallels the theory–practice link explored in the previous section. In
many
ways, the two are interlinked although we have discussed them separately for several reasons. As long as internal
communication
is seen as a tactical function, it will not become an independent domain nor will it add value to the orga-
nization.
Those who value the need for introspection and reflexivity in a domain, will also by extension value the ability of
the
domain to transcend tactics and contribute to strategic management.
3.5.
Is internal communication a separate research field?
We
believe that internal communication has now progressed into being a specialist domain in itself. This was confirmed
in
our Delphi evidence as well. Seven of nine of our respondents agreed that internal communication is, and should be, a
separate
field. Even though internal communication ought to be practiced as a segment of public relations, it also deserves
to
be an independent department just like media relations or issues management. One of the respondents explained that
IC
is a separate field since the relationship between members of the organization is distinct from relationships with other
stakeholders
such as shareholders, customers, regulators, etc. Depending on the company, internal communication is located
in
either the “Communication” or “Human Resources” department because, as of now, in most organizations it is not seen
as
an independent department.
3.6.
Current issues in internal communication
Like
every emerging domain, internal communication also faces several issues based on its novelty alone such as the
justification
for its existence as an independent field. Lack of avenues for training and professional development also create
a
perception that this is not a professional specialty. The Delphi evidence suggested that the lack of scholarship in this field
that
shows the positive link between internal communication and organizational well being also has contributed to the lack of
recognition
of this field among senior managers. According to participants the digital-native generation of new entrants to the
job
market and bring a pervasive way of experiencing communication in general and internal communication in particular.
Other
issues that came up among the Delphi respondents included credibility of leaders, engagement and employee loyalty,
motivation,
social media, cultural differences and interpretation of messages, communication of line managers/managers,
web
based social networking, communicating change, communicating during social crisis and issue management.
The
second round confirmed the issues mentioned in the first round with the highest average and modal values. One of
the
hottest issues IC seems to involve new internal digital (social) media with a very high average of M = 4.75 and a modal
value
of 5. Change communication follows closely with an average level of agreement of M = 4.63. Topics such as employee
engagement,
loyalty and motivation (M = 4.38); value for money(M = 4.0) and trust and credibility of leadership (M = 4.00)
have
relatively high scores as well. Issue of cultural diversity had an average only slightly higher than 3.00 (M = 3.25) but a
modal
value of 4, meaning that opinions depend largely on the origin of the respondent. Given the mobility of the workforce
and
the forces of globalization that have created a “global village”, we believe this low score is indicative of the ethnocentric
mindset
that still dominates most fields including communication. We can only hope that this score going higher in the
years
to come based on the recognition of the heterogeneity of employees in every region of the world (Table 1).