1
MEASURING AN ORGANIZATION’S TWO-WAY SYMMETRICAL COMMUNICATION AND PERCEIVED AUTHENTICITY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO EMPLOYEE
ADVOCACY
By
CALLIE LYNNE POLK
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2013
2
© 2013 Callie Lynne Polk
3
To my dad, who pushed me to always better myself and never stop learning
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis committee chair and advisor,
Dr. Kathleen S. Kelly. She spent countless hours helping me improve my thesis
materials from survey invitations to my references. I have never met anyone with such
tenacity and passion for helping students and furthering the profession of public
relations. Her dedication and support knows no bounds. I cannot express how much Dr.
Kelly has been a role model and inspiration to me while guiding me to the finish line.
I would also like to thank my esteemed committee members, Dr. Juan Carlos
Molleda and Dr. Spiro Kiousis. Dr. Molleda’s expertise in the field, insight and kindness
were extremely helpful in my journey to complete my thesis. His work studying
perceived authenticity provided the foundation for a large portion of my research. Dr.
Kiousis especially helped guide my methodology and made vast improvements to my
questionnaire. Without their personal contributions, suggestions, and encouragement
my thesis would not be as valuable to the field.
Without support from my family and friends I would not have made it through this
experience. Encouraging words and phone calls checking in went a long way. Thank
you especially to my father, Bill Polk, boyfriend, Cameron Wilkes, my sister and her
family, Rachel Horn, Mrs. Iris Robuck, Nora Kilroy, and my Uncle Jim Polk, who helped
me get this whole project started. Also, thank you to my mother -- her legacy, spirit and
faith still guide me today.
Finally, I would like to thank all of my professors and classmates at the University
of Florida in the College of Journalism and Communications. All of my experiences at
the University during both my undergraduate and graduate education have led me
5
through this journey. I look forward to a promising career thanks to such a supportive
and helpful faculty and staff.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 8
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 9
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER
1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 12
Employee Communication and Authenticity ............................................................ 14 Employee Communication and Advocacy ............................................................... 16
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 18
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 21
Two-way Symmetrical Communication ................................................................... 21
Two-way Symmetrical Communication and Ethics ........................................... 23 Two-way Symmetrical Communication in Corporate Communication .............. 24
Employee/Internal Communication ......................................................................... 25 Employee Blogging .......................................................................................... 26
Perceived Organizational Authenticity .............................................................. 29 Trust ................................................................................................................. 30
Employee Advocacy ............................................................................................... 31
Social Media Sites ............................................................................................ 35 Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter ................................................................. 36
Hypotheses and Research Questions .................................................................... 37
3 METHOD ................................................................................................................ 40
Survey Research .................................................................................................... 40
Selection of Organization and Population ............................................................... 41 Sampling Frames .................................................................................................... 42 Survey Instrument and Measurement ..................................................................... 43
Two-Way Symmetrical Communication ............................................................ 44
Perceived Organizational Authenticity .............................................................. 44 Employee Advocacy ......................................................................................... 45 Research Questions ......................................................................................... 47
Electronic Survey .................................................................................................... 49 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 50
7
4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 53
Response Rates and Participant Classification ...................................................... 53 Description of Survey Participants .......................................................................... 54
Analyses of Key Concepts ...................................................................................... 56 Two-way Symmetrical Communication ............................................................ 56 Perceived Organizational Authenticity .............................................................. 57 Employee Advocacy ......................................................................................... 58
Hypotheses Testing and Research Questions ........................................................ 59
Open-Ended Question Responses ......................................................................... 63
5 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 74
Summary of the Findings ........................................................................................ 75
Implications for Public Relations Theory ................................................................. 79 Implications for Public Relations Practice ............................................................... 81 Limitations and Future Research Recommendations ............................................. 85
APPENDIX
A QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................................. 89
B UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL FORM ..................................................................................................................... 99
C UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT APPROVAL ........................................................................................ 100
D EMAIL INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN SURVEY ........................................... 102
E FIRST EMAIL SURVEY PARTICIPATION REMINDER ........................................ 103
F SECOND EMAIL SURVEY PARTICIPATION REMINDER ................................... 104
G THANK-YOU EMAIL AND FINAL SURVEY REMINDER ...................................... 105
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 106
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 114
8
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 3-1 Survey instrument items ..................................................................................... 52
4-1 Demographics of respondents ............................................................................ 67
4-2 Means and standard deviations of two-way symmetrical communication items and scale ................................................................................................... 68
4-3 Means and standard deviations of perceived organizational authenticity items and scale ............................................................................................................ 69
4-4 Means and standard deviations of employee advocacy items and scale ........... 70
4-5 Pearson correlation coefficients among two-way symmetrical communication, perceived organizational authenticity, and employee advocacy ......................... 71
4-6 Results of regression analysis for employee advocacy ...................................... 71
4-7 T-test results of differences in scores between teachers and administrators ..... 72
4-8 Respondents’ use of social media sites for employee advocacy ........................ 72
4-9 Respondents’ message sentiment about employer on social media sites .......... 73
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 2-1 Visual depiction of the model proposed by the Arthur W. Page Society (2012)
to illustrate the future of enterprise communication ............................................ 20
10
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication
MEASURING AN ORGANIZATION’S TWO-WAY SYMMETRICAL COMMUNICATION AND PERCEIVED AUTHENTICITY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO EMPLOYEE
ADVOCACY
By
Callie Lynne Polk
May 2013
Chair: Kathleen S. Kelly Major: Mass Communication
Recent studies in public relations encouraged organizations to utilize one of their
best resources, employees. The concept of employee advocacy has become an area of
interest in the professional field, but has had paucity in theory. The purpose of this study
is to strengthen the relationships between two-way symmetrical communication and
perceived organizational authenticity and understand how they relate to employee
advocacy. To measure these relationships, this study surveyed employees about how
they perceive their organization’s communication and authenticity to better understand
employee advocacy.
Results of the study revealed a strong relationship between two-way symmetrical
communication and perceived organizational authenticity, results that are similar to
those of previous studies. This study adds a new dimension by using messaging as
indicators of employee advocacy and documents the relationship between perceived
organizational authenticity and employee advocacy among paid full-time employees.
Findings supported that perceived organizational authenticity also has a strong
relationship to employee advocacy.
11
As an additional finding, while trade publications portray publics flocking to social
media sites (SMS), results showed that employees use them very little to discuss their
organization. This study found that a small proportion of employees use SMS to
advocate, most frequently using email and Facebook.
This study successfully demonstrates that organizations have an opportunity to
foster employee advocacy by practicing two-way symmetrical communication, which
increases perceived organizational authenticity. These organizations should empower
and educate their employees to advocate, whether through traditional means or
emergent communication channels.
12
CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Word of mouth can be one of the most powerful communication channels
corporations can use advantageously, especially in the digital age (Arthur W. Page
Society, 2007; Arthur W. Page Society, 2012; Ketchum, 2009). The referral system has
long been a way for organizations to promote products and services, but now it is
becoming increasingly more important to harness the advocacy of employees in
particular to build trust, retain talent, and recruit new talent in the industry (Burton,
2006a; Burton, 2006b; Burton, 2011a, Burton, 2011b; Walton, 2010). It is essential for
organizations to utilize word of mouth from employee-to-employee or employee-to-
publics to build trust (Burton, 2006a). This trust can only be mobilized by tapping into
the voices of those very employees and listening to what they are saying and collecting
feedback from them.
Keith Burton is president of InsideEdge, a worldwide internal-communications
consultancy affiliated with the well-known public relations firm GolinHarris, and
acclaimed expert in employee communications and change communications with 30
years of experience. Burton (2006b) argued that the public relations profession has not
done enough to measure employee advocacy or to gauge if employees understand their
role in business strategy. Burton (2011b) strongly tied employee communications to the
bottom line and business objectives by highlighting the importance of increasing
employees’ awareness in their stake in promoting an organization’s success.
One of the most important and growing trends in the digital age, according to
Burton (2006a;2011b) and Walton (2010), is authenticity and corporate transparency.
This has been echoed in both academic and professional studies.
13
The Arthur W. Page Society (2012), a professional association composed
primarily of the chief communication officers (CCOs) of the largest U.S. corporations,
released a new model for CCOs to follow that prescribes steps to encourage advocacy.
Building on the idea of authenticity, the model encourages enterprises to create a
“corporate character,” thus building what the society calls “authentic advocacy.”
In the 2012 report, Building belief: A new model for activating corporate character
and authentic advocacy, the society pointed to “advocacy at scale” as one of four key
steps to building corporate character and promoting advocacy, the other three steps
being belief, action, and confidence (See figure 2-1.) Advocacy at scale is defined and
created by “build[ing] constituency with more audiences through the networks of these
advocates” (p. 1). The steps all revolve around the “corporate character” of an
organization. Corporate character is detailed in the report and defined as, “What makes
us unique: Our Beliefs, Our Values, Our Purpose, Our Actions” (p. 15). The report also
identified “two key dimensions of organizational authenticity, each of which is grounded
in the creation of shared belief:
“1. The definition and activation of corporate character.
“2. The building of advocacy at scale.” (p. 10)
Shen and Kim (2012) analyzed a concept advocated by the Arthur W. Page
Society (2007): increasing and promoting authenticity in corporations. Shen and Kim’s
study focused on surveying publics about symmetrical communication, perceived
organization-public relationships, and positive and negative messaging. Shen and Kim’s
(2012) results found that perceived authenticity is a mediating variable between two-
way symmetrical communication and perceived organization-public relationships.
14
Whereas Shen and Kim (2012) focused on organization-public relationships, this
study chose to study specifically employee publics. By combining the two principles of
advocacy at scale and corporate character from the Arthur W. Page Society (2012) this
study aimed to measure the current trends in employee advocacy. However, social
media sites (SMS) and publics’ ubiquitous use of them have rapidly changed the media
landscape and, therefore, become important factors in the analysis of trends in
employee advocacy. Social media sites have become easier to use and accessible to
wider audiences (Wright & Hinson, 2009). These SMS can be valuable tools employers
can use to encourage advocacy for initiatives or SMS can be used to quickly spread
negative opinions and perceptions to publics who have a level of trust with the
communicator (Zijtveld & Klinckhamers, 2011). While SMS can increase the channels
and audience size where employees advocate, studies have shown that employee
advocacy can be increased by organizational authenticity and effective use of two-way
symmetrical communication.
Employee Communication and Authenticity
An impact of two-way symmetrical communication is perceived organizational
authenticity (Molleda & Jain, 2013; Molleda, 2010a; Molleda, 2010b; Shen & Kim,
2012), which in turn impacts employee advocacy and corporate character (Carr, 2012;
Church, 2012; Walton, 2010). Employers need to engage their employees in effective
two-way communication to improve perceived organizational authenticity and harness
the benefits of advocacy.
Creating authenticity bridges the connection between corporate character and
advocacy at scale. Authenticity was one of the most important growing trends to watch
in 2010, according to Susan Balcom Walton (2010) in an article in Public Relations
15
Tactics. Walton has more than 20 years of experience in corporate communication and
media relations internationally, including top positions in Fortune 500 companies, and is
considered an expert in social media practices. She recently was selected as the
University of North Dakota’s vice president for university and public affairs. Walton’s
(2010) article cited transparency as a positive attribute of organizations.
According to Burton (2006b), a key step in building employee trust is having
“honesty and candor in sharing both good and bad news” (p. 34). Burton (2011) also
preached the importance of authenticity especially in the digital age, echoing many of
Walton’s (2010) comments. Burton (2011) said,
Today’s employees are looking for total values alignment with their employer, and environmental stewardship alone is no longer sufficient. Authenticity—which calls for demonstrating integrity, telling employees the truth even if the news is bad, being consistent in what is said and done and acting in an honest, trustworthy way—is the new standard. (p. 15)
This echoes Walton’s (2010) article about organizations’ need to be more open and
accepting of negative feedback and embracing feedback to become more transparent
and trustworthy. “More savvy social media users are learning to welcome and even
embrace negative comments” (p. 15).
From 2006 to 2008, the survey Media myths & realities found that word of mouth
was considered one of the most credible communication channels, both online and
offline, and it helped consumers make decisions about products and services from
people they trust, such as family and friends (Ketchum, 2009). The survey (Ketchum,
2009) also found, “Companies that can effectively tap into a word-of-mouth network in
an authentic way can reap huge benefits for their brands” (p. 245).
16
Employee Communication and Advocacy
In today’s society it is increasingly hard to engage employees and maintain their
trust, let alone get them to become advocates for organizations, which is a necessary
step to build advocacy at scale (Arthur W. Page Society, 2012). In 2006, forums were
springing up where communities of publics and employees could come together digitally
and “influence business performance, cultural practices, the flow of rumors through the
corporate grapevine and both official and unofficial activities” (Burton, 2006b, p. 38).
The Internet provides a place where people can have open discourse and honest
transactions about organizations and employers. These transactions can be influenced
if organizations work to ensure that all employees are aware of and on board with the
organization’s business objectives (Burton, 2006b; Church, 2012). In this sense,
employee communication has gone from a function of “sharing” information to a function
that is “driving” information (Burton, 2006b).
According to Geno Church (2012), word-of-mouth expert contributor to the Public
Relations Society of America’s (PRSA) blog, employees who are empowered to be
advocates of an employer will have “a contagious passion for their brand’s purpose,”
and inspire others to become advocates (n.p.). Online forums have become one of the
most popular channels for employees to express opinions or advocate for their
employers in an environment where the actual employer has no control or way of
responding (Mirabella, 2012; “Using social media,” 2012). Potential employees have
learned to keep tabs on these online forums and SMS to help decide on the best
workplace when looking for employment.
According to recruiter and trainer Shannon Seery Gude (as cited in the article
“Using social media,” 2012), employers should:
17
Make employees your online ambassadors. Your fans are your employees.
They are the people who have already made the buy-in decision about the
company. When they share their perspective online about work and the
organization, job seekers are more likely to trust this information. (p. 10)
Senior vice president and practice director of social media and digital at MSLGroup,
Adam Mirabella (2012), shared his opinion in his article about social media, “A
company’s success will depend on how well [managers] can rise above the
conventional geographic and cultural barriers, and tap into the collective power of their
people resources” (n.p.).
Two-thirds of companies already measure internal communications either
qualitatively or quantitatively (Burton, 2011). Surveys are the most common way of
measuring employee engagement, effectiveness of communication and communication
channels, and quality of specific one-time events. Given the fact that employee surveys
have been shown to be the most popular method used by organizations to measure
engagement and communication patterns, the proposed study will also use an
employee survey to answer the research questions.
Some companies are making it easier for employees to share information about
the company by allowing articles from their intranet to be shared externally on social
networks (Carr, 2012). According to Carr (2012) “In a 2010 survey of PepsiCo
employees, 65% said that friends and family ask them questions about PepsiCo or its
products, and more than half said they would like PepsiCo to provide them with
information to share across social media channels” (n.p.). After receiving the survey
results, PepsiCo designed a program to educate its employees on sharing information
18
on social media channels rather than referring employees to a webpage. The program
focused on information that employees could share with friends and family on their own
terms and allows the company to gain twice as much attention from articles that are
published as news releases and other versions that can be shared. Such a model could
gain popularity in other organizations and drive a new level of organizational advocacy.
Representatives at PepsiCo have claimed they would like the initiative to be authentic
rather than coerced.
Employees who do not have access to programs like PepsiCo’s, among others,
will often turn to outside sources to air concerns or advocate for employers (Mirabella,
2012). Some anonymous rating websites (e.g., Glassdoor and TaleoUp) have sprung
up for the sole purpose of rating and writing information about a work experience, such
as job satisfaction, salary, CEO rating, and workplace rating (http://www.glassdoor.com;
http://www.talentexchange.com).
Purpose of the Study
This study will examine a suburban school district in the Southeast U.S. to gauge
employee advocacy, operationalized as positive or negative messaging, and its
relationship with perceived organizational authenticity (e.g., perceptions of corporate
character). The study focuses on employees because, according to the Arthur W. Page
Society (2012), “Research proves that an enterprise’s employees are by far its most
credible representatives. So the most direct and practical strategy for building belief,
action and advocacy in the world at large is to build them inside the company” (p. 14).
This study will measure the relationships among two-way symmetrical communication,
perceived organizational authenticity and employee advocacy. The study will also
examine how often employees share information about their employer using social
19
media sites or anonymous rating websites, and what type of sentiment is used to
communicate using these channels.
20
Figure 2-1. Visual depiction of the model proposed by the Arthur W. Page Society
(2012) Building belief: A new model for activating corporate character and authentic advocacy, 15. © 2012 Arthur W. Page Society. Used with permission.
21
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Three main concepts guide this study, 1) two-way symmetrical communication,
2) perceived organizational authenticity, and 3) employee advocacy. The literature pulls
in other subcategories within each of these categories. The first section of this chapter
focuses on the study’s theoretical foundation, two-way symmetrical communication, and
includes literature about trust and ethical corporate communications. Subsequent
sections examine authenticity and its relation to internal/employee communication and
organizations. The third and final section analyzes advocacy. Advocacy ties together
previous literature about authenticity and organizational execution of two-way
symmetrical communication. The chapter concludes by presenting the study’s
hypotheses and research questions.
Two-way Symmetrical Communication
A review of previous literature on two-way symmetrical communication was
conducted as a way of measuring excellent public relations detailed in Dozier, L.
Grunig, and J. Grunig (1995); L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Dozier (2002); and L. Grunig, J.
Grunig, and Ehling (1992). The two-way symmetrical communication model provides an
appropriate theoretical framework for this study, as it also did for Blum and Tremarco’s
(2008) study on employee turnover and retention. The two-way symmetrical model
“points out the importance of developing a common ground and sense of
understanding” (p. 4).
The idea of two-way symmetrical communication was conceptualized as part of
the model for public relations by J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) and has become a model for
excellent public relations practices (cited in Bowen, 2005a). Excellent public relations
22
depends on symmetrical communication both internally and externally. The model
increases employee satisfaction, improves organization effectiveness and allows long-
term relationship building (Bowen, 2005b; Kim & Rhee, 2011). Managers who
communicate using the two-way symmetrical model act as advocates for publics during
instances where strategic decision-making is necessary (Dozier, L. Grunig, & J. Grunig,
1995).
According to Dozier, L. Grunig, and J. Grunig (1995), “Two-way communication
seeks to manage conflict and promote mutual understanding with key publics” (p.13).
This model encourages communicators to help organizations and their key publics
create solutions to problems by negotiating. Symmetrical communication encourages
feedback from publics, which may be used by senior management to change how an
organization conducts itself and how it defines its “character.” According to well-known
textbook authors Scott Cutlip and Allen Center (as cited in Broom, 2012), “Public
relations is the planned effort to influence opinion through good character and
responsible performance, based upon mutually satisfactory two-way communication” (p.
16).
Extending the Excellence theory, L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Dozier (2002) said
there are characteristics that can enhance excellence in public relations. These
characteristics are, 1) engaging in environmental scanning and planning
communications strategically according to those environments, 2) accessing the
dominant coalition, 3) adopting “collaborative advocacy” to balance the interests of
internal and external publics with those of the organization, 4) having pressure from
activist groups or turbulence, which can help an organization excel, and 5) having open
23
communication internally while encouraging a participative dialogue and decision-
making process between employees and employers. This open communication and
dialogue are essential for the two-way symmetrical model to be successful (Bowen,
2005b).
There are several features that must be satisfied to create dialogue, sometimes
labeled as dialogic communication, outlined by Kent and Taylor (2002). These features
include mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk, commitment, and spontaneous
interactions with publics. Honesty, trust and positive regard are other principles cited by
the scholars that shift dialogue from being “a means to an end” to being considered the
most ethical means of communicating (Kent & Taylor, 2002).
Two-way symmetrical communication can also flow between employees and
other types of publics that are not employed by the organization. However, two-way
symmetrical communication within an organization plays a big role in employee
retention and trust (Burton, 2006a; Burton, 2006b; Burton, 2011a; Burton, 2011b). Trust
and loyalty are direct outcomes of effective two-way symmetrical internal
communications.
Two-way Symmetrical Communication and Ethics
The idea of genuine dialogue is often considered synonymous with two-way
symmetrical communication and is a necessary function of effective public relations
(Broom, 2012; J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Scholars suggested that good communication is
reliant on “good” people being the communicators, good people being defined as
“ethically honest and moral” (Nagy, 2005, p. 869). Originally, J. Grunig and Hunt’s
(1984) two-way symmetrical model did not address ethics, but L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and
Dozier (2002) mentioned it as an important component of excellent public relations.
24
Scholars agreed that a commitment to ethics and integrity is crucial to public relations
excellence via two-way symmetrical communication (Bowen, 2005b; Broom, 2012; L.
Grunig, J. Grunig, & Verčič, 1998; Nagy, 2005). J. Grunig and L. Grunig (1996) said
“public relations will be inherently ethical if it follows the principles of the two-way
symmetrical model” (p. 40).
The two-way symmetrical model provides an ethical foundation for
communication, as scholars have argued, unlike the one-way models presented in the
Excellence Theory—press agentry and public information—and therefore, two-way
symmetrical is a superior method (J. Grunig, & Hunt 1984; Bowen, 2005b; Nagy, 2005).
Bowen (2005b) described building ethics via two-way symmetrical communication as
“Including the views of publics in organizational decision making is believed to be
inherently ethical and provides information that the organization can use in strategic
planning” (p. 308). Bowen cites those reasons to support the two-way symmetrical
model as the most excellent way of conducting public relations.
Two-way Symmetrical Communication in Corporate Communication
Corporate communication was not only altered by the practice of two-way
symmetrical communication in the workplace, but since the dawn of the Internet, two-
way symmetrical communication has played an essential role in corporate
communication practices including sending e-mails, engaging in social networking and
managing websites (Laskin, 2009; Wright, 2001).
According to Wright (1998), “The Internet (including Intranets and Extranets)
represents a paradigmatic shift in corporate communications, opening the door to fully
two-way communications between a corporation and its publics” (p. 2). Wright (1998)
suggested that corporate communications officers should develop policies to support
25
interactive communications internally and externally on any communication channels.
He also stressed the importance of hiring new employees who were comfortable in a
rapidly changing media environment, making it easier to collaborate with publics inside
and outside the company. Bowen (2005b) also found that two-way symmetrical
communication allowed for organizations and publics to debate, negotiate and
collaborate over issues to determine the best action steps to take. According to
Hallahan (2005),
Among external audiences, forward-thinking organizations are creating mechanisms for people to provide feedback on social issues and the organization’s issue positions, consistent with notions about the importance of dialogue and two way communications. Beyond serving as valuable research findings, public access to comments allows others to crystallize, change, or reinforce their own opinions. (p. 590)
Through a study of senior level public relations practitioners, Wright (1998)
showed that 79% said the Internet improved two-way communications between
companies and its publics. The data showed however that senior policy makers at the
time were not aware of the power or extent to which the Internet can be used for
“monitoring what others are saying about you, government advocacy, grassroots
campaigns, etc.” (p. 11). However, 75% of the respondents said they were monitoring
the Web to discover what others were saying about their companies.
Employee/Internal Communication
L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Dozier (2002) cited effective internal communication as
an important step in achieving corporate goals and objectives while also enabling
organizations to develop structure and culture. Internal communication associated with
the two-way symmetrical model has also been linked to positive effects on employees
including higher job satisfaction, trust and empowerment (Jo & Shim, 2005).
26
Qualified public relations professionals can be hard to find, motivate and retain
(Blum & Tremarco, 2008). New technology makes it easier to have an open and
collaborative communication experience (Hearn, Foth, & Gray, 2009). Sometimes the
level of “openness” is resisted by organizations that try to limit what employees can and
cannot say (Wright & Hinson, 2006). From an employee perspective, Kroll (2011)
pointed out there have been several laws that determined employees are allowed to
freely state their thoughts and opinions on social media or other media, even if they are
critical of their employers or workplace.
Employee Blogging
Employee blogs were the focus of a multitude of studies in the early- to mid-
2000s when large corporations, mainly in technological fields, allowed or even
encouraged employees to maintain personal blogs (Conlin & Park, 2004; Wright &
Hinson, 2006). Company executives saw blogging as a way to humanize their
companies and foster personal relationships with employees and publics.
According to Conlin and Park (2004), “Blogs are also hyper efficient at driving
product innovation. And they create loyal audiences. Once people get hooked, they
keep coming back for more” (p. 100). Originally employers provided the tools for
employees to create and publish blogs and regulation was minimal, if existent. “It’s likely
only a matter of time before some workplace pundit spills a trade secret, unwittingly
leaks a clandestine launch date, or takes a swipe at a CEO that turns into slander”
(Conlin & Park, 2004, p. 101).
Today it would be rare for consumers to see an official employee blog outside of
the corporate Intranet. Public relations practitioners have been accused of fearing
employee blogs due to a lack of message control (Wright & Hinson, 2006). Employee
27
blogs have been replaced rather by official corporate blogs, often written by the
corporation’s public relations team or an agency (Yang & Lim, 2009). However, now
employees can create a personal blog either without cost or inexpensively via public
sites like Wordpress, Blogger, and Tumblr.
Wright and Hinson (2006) studied employee blogging outside of the workplace
and the ethical concerns of positive or negative messaging found within those blogs.
The study questioned whether or not employers are acting ethically by conducting
research on employees’ personal blogs, unaffiliated with the employer. According to
Zijtveld and Klinckhamers (2011),
If comments are made outside working hours, a balancing of interests is even more important, because the employer’s control is limited to the workplace. What is involved then is primarily good conduct as an employee. After all, a good employee can be expected not to make any deleterious comments about their employer, colleagues or anything else that might be damaging to the employer, whether during working hours or at any other time. (n.p.)
This idea is very similar to Nagy’s (2005) “good” people being responsible for good
communications.
Wright and Hinson (2006) found from a sample of nearly 300 public relations
practitioners in various professional organizations that nearly 90% of respondents
believe it is ethical for employers to monitor or research employee blogging activity.
Another 59% of employees believe employers should be able to terminate or reprimand
a worker for posting confidential or proprietary information on a blog, while 55% believe
employers should be able to terminate or reprimand employees for posting “damaging,
embarrassing, negative information about the employer” (p. 6). A smaller 23% believe
that fellow employees are entitled to post criticism or satire about employers, fellow
employees and supervisors, customers or clients without fear of reprimand. Finally, the
28
study also found that of employees who are blogging, advocacy is more prevalent than
negative messaging on the blogs.
Blogs provided employees with a sense of empowerment and created new
means for internal and external audiences to communicate (Wright & Hinson, 2006). It
was not until the late 2000s when corporations recognized that blogging was more than
a passing fad and instead could be a highly valuable tool for engaging publics (Global
Perspectives, 2008; J. Grunig, 2009; Porter, Sweetser Trammell, Chung & Kim, 2007;
Yang & Lim, 2009). Research by Yang and Lim (2009) showed that the growing
blogging trend needed to have set rules and list acceptable practices, also known as
blog-mediated public relations. Blog-mediated public relations relied on critical features
like, “effective salience of narrative structure, dialogical self, blogger credibility, and
interactivity” to be considered effective (p. 341). The study also found that interactivity
was enhanced by dialogic principles, which increased relational trust.
Kent (2008) made the same argument, “A blog will only be useful to an
organization if it has someone to maintain it, someone trained in effective dialogic
communication, and someone who has the trust of individuals and publics” (p. 39).
Personal blogs can pose the same lack of trust as organizational blogs unless there is a
connection between the blogger and the audience that creates some form of trust. This
offers one stark difference between opinions on blogs and on other social media
platforms like Facebook where the user “is friends” with the communicator. The concept
of friending, following and connecting will be further analyzed in the next section. For all
new digital technologies, it is important to understand how key publics are advocating,
29
sharing and gathering information to be able to guide employee advocacy and strategic
messages to improve perceived organizational authenticity (Key, 2005).
Perceived Organizational Authenticity
The concept of authenticity dates back to ancient Greek literature yet is still a
popular concept in modern studies (Arthur W. Page Society, 2007; Arthur W. Page
Society, 2012; Edwards, 2010; Molleda & Jain, 2013; Molleda, 2010a; Molleda, 2010b;
Shen & Kim, 2012). Shen and Kim (2012) studied perceived authenticity as a mediator
between organization-public relationships and symmetrical communication. The authors
analyzed previous definitions and research to conceptualize three components of
perceived authentic organization behavior: The first component is truthfulness, the
second is transparency and showing publics that the organization is responsible for its
actions, and the final component is consistency, when authentic organizations act in
congruence with its values, beliefs, and communications.
If an individual acts true to oneself and is not perceived as fake, superficial, or
fragmented, then the perception of authenticity is created (Czarniawska, 2000). In an
organizational setting, the organization’s members and publics should perceive the
organization’s identity to have characteristics that are distinctive, central, and enduring
(Albert & Whetten, 1985; Czarniawska, 2000; Shen & Kim, 2012).
According to Molleda (2010b), authenticity is becoming increasingly important
because stakeholders demand “greater transparency, openness, and responsibility” (p.
223). He further added, “Authenticity claims must capture the experiences, aspirations,
and expectations of the involved segment of society that organisations aim to engage;
otherwise, a clash of values may occur (p. 223). Digital communications according to
Molleda (2010b) can change perceptions from inauthentic to authentic and hence
30
influence perceived organizational authenticity. According to Camilleri (2008), if
organizations claim the products, services, and ideas they advocate are authentic,
authentic communication is required. Consistency between claims, behavior, and values
determine the effectiveness of public relations practices and in turn effective perceived
organizational authenticity.
Molleda (2010b) echoed Camilleri’s study, saying authenticity must remain
consistent in claims, promises, and offerings when compared with actual organizational
behaviors. The consistency between authentic claims and behavior determines the
effectiveness of public relations efforts as assessed by stakeholders. “The evenness
between the genuine nature of organisational offerings and their communication is
crucial to overcome the eroding confidence in major social institutions” (Molleda, 2010b,
p. 230). If stakeholders view organizations as authentic, gaining stakeholder trust is a
more likely outcome (Shen & Kim, 2012).
Trust
Trust is an essential property to build high quality interactions in today’s online
cacophony of messages from a myriad of channels, including websites, blogs, wikis and
social media sites (Quandt, 2012). With more and more information it becomes difficult
to distinguish correct information from that which is untrustworthy and inaccurate
(Zhang & Yu, 2012).
In the 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer, social media saw a 75% increase in trust
from previous years, moving from 8% as a trusted source to 14% as a trusted source
(Edelman Trust Barometer, 2012). Other trusted sources of information included
traditional news, online multiple sources and corporate news—all of which experienced
an increase of 10% or more in trust. Trust in corporate information increased by 23% in
31
2012. However, trust severely declined for government officials and CEOs, falling by
14% and 12% respectively. Businesses and government are not meeting the
expectations of consumers in efforts to build trust; however, businesses began to close
the gap between consumer expectations and actual practices. Businesses have been
employing more practices that build trust and therefore gaining more consumer trust
than government in recent years.
On the other hand, credibility increased for “regular employees” by 16%, putting
them as the fourth most-credible source for information about a company, and credibility
also increased for “a person like yourself” by 22% putting the “average Joe” as the third
most credible source of information about a company (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2012).
The top two sources of credibility in 2012 were an academic or expert followed by a
technical expert in a company. This data shows that peers and employees are more
trusted than other business representatives. “Smart businesses will take advantage of
this dispersion of authority. They will talk to their employees first, and empower them to
drive the conversation among their peers about the company and its role in society”
(Edelman Trust Barometer, 2012, p. 7).
This shift in trust is echoed by Quandt (2012): “There seems to be dwindling trust
in media and public authorities in highly developed, democratic societies, with a
common fear that audiences are being manipulated. At the same time, people in these
countries increasingly turn to alternative information sources, like social networks, blogs
and other forms of online communication that they deem to be more authentic” (p. 7).
Employee Advocacy
Trust is believed to be the moderating factor between perceived authenticity and
belief in organizational messages (Walz & Celuch, 2010). Jaffe (2010) suggested that
32
organizations capitalize on this trust relationship and focus more resources on building
and promoting advocacy with trusting consumers rather than spending exorbitant
resources on garnering new ones.
Employees often interact with external publics on a daily basis making them one
of the most important stakeholder groups, more so than the media, analysts and
investors (Holtz, 2002; Kim & Rhee, 2012). Employee advocacy can make or break a
public relations campaign based on whether the messages an organization is trying to
send are being genuinely reinforced to other publics by those constituents (Holtz, 2002).
Advocacy is argued to be one of the most important outcomes of engaging
publics, whether it’s defending a company, product or brand or promoting those things
(Walz & Celuch, 2010). Walz and Celuch (2010) examined “the direct effect of
communication quality on advocacy as well as both mediating and moderating effects of
trust on the communication quality-advocacy relationship” (p. 95). The study used a
sample of more than 1,000 customers of a regional coffee chain. The results supported
that trust and quality communications act as mediators between organizations and
consumer advocacy (Walz & Celuch, 2010).
Online communications have the ability to allow creation of mutually beneficial
relationships that foster positive reputations and interactive organization-public
relationships (Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001). It is critical for organizations to build
relationships with publics via online communications when that is the only connection
between the user and the organization.
Blum and Tremarco (2008) conducted a study of employee turnover and
retention in public relations firms and reported, ‘‘finding, motivating and retaining talent
33
[is] their top challenge’’ for senior public relations managers (p. 38). The authors also
reported based on their survey results that, “Employees who have been at the firm two
to five years also ranked recommending the firm to a friend in the top five highest
correlations to overall satisfaction” (p. 18; emphasis in original). Furthermore,
“Employees with over 10 years with the firm ranked recommending the firm second
[only] to work that was stimulating. This group is committed to building their career with
the firm” (p. 20; emphasis in original).
Employees have been compared to informal public relations practitioners in their
interaction with constituencies outside of the organization (Jo & Shim, 2005; Kim &
Rhee, 2011). Some studies have claimed that the opinions of employees are more
influential than public relations representatives on factors such as organizational
reputation and organization-public relationship quality (Kim & Rhee, 2011). Employees
can be either advocates or adversaries, which is amplified during times of crisis and
affected by ethical behavior (Blum & Tremarco, 2008; Kim & Rhee, 2011; Gallicano,
Curtin, & Matthews, 2012).
Dellarocas (2003) claimed that online feedback mechanisms increased the
public’s reliance on opinions and peer reviews posted online when making decisions
whereas previously decisions were based on advertisements of advice from
professionals. Dellarocas (2003) found that feedback mechanisms affect an
organization’s ability to build trust and foster cooperation online and affect management
functions of “customer acquisition and retention, brand building, product development
and quality assurance” (p. 1422).
34
Yohn (2010) recommended that companies should educate their employees on
how to communicate about a brand and create brand guidelines so they will be good
“brand ambassadors.” The first tip is to educate employees on how to talk about the
brand, encouraging employees to be respectful and responsible in online
communications. “Social media guidelines should be widely accessible and updated
frequently to reflect the new risks that may arise from emerging technologies and
applications” (Yohn, 2010, n.p.).
The second suggestion from Yohn (2010) is to teach employees what the
corporate brand personality is and how to bring it to life through either writing or images,
or both. Finally, Yohn recommends teaching employees how to cultivate relationships
with customers that can help the customers understand and enjoy the brand. Yohn
(2010) said,
An enthusiastic employee might generate positive feelings about the company, while a disgruntled one could sour people’s opinions. Some companies have prohibited employees from mentioning their companies or brands in their personal social media, but this is not a practical or desirable way to prevent negative comments. Denying employees the ability to express themselves is difficult to manage and may eventually backfire. Plus, when you do so, you miss out on developing powerful word-of-mouth advertising through some of the most influential people available to you. (n.p.)
Eysenbach (2008) found social media sites can become a place to turn for
people who are either afraid to ask questions openly or want quick and easy answers.
The level of anonymity available on certain social media platforms has greatly increased
participation. The Internet and SMS have essentially created a limitless place where
publics can advocate, share, save and retrieve information about organizations,
products, brands, and services (Walz & Celuch, 2010).
35
Social Media Sites
In 1998, Kent and Taylor stated that organization-public relationships cannot be
built or destroyed by technology itself, but rather organization-public relationships are
influenced by how technology is used. One of these emergent technologies is social
media, which has been growing exponentially within the past decade thanks in most
part to social media sites that are connecting more people locally, nationally and
globally each day (J. Grunig, 2009; Kent & Taylor, 2002; Wright & Hinson, 2012). Social
media sites provide organizations with a space to interact with key publics and to allow
users to engage with one another on topics of mutual interest, providing the ideal
conditions necessary for stimulating dialogic communication (J. Grunig, 2009).
To be successful in the new age of digital communications, practitioners will have
to adopt new strategies and approaches to protect their corporate reputations and build
word-of-mouth chatter and visibility (Key, 2005). According to Cramer (2009), in the new
age social media tools require practitioners to have a higher level of trust in publics and
it’s important to maintain a level of organizational control. “Before undertaking a social
media strategy, make sure all employees support the idea and are willing to integrate
social media functions into their work. Organizational buy-in is critical to adopting and
sustaining social media for the long-term” (Cramer, 2009, p. 2).
Employees’ reputations can also be affected by social media use based on
alignment with different issues or opinions (Smith, 2010). Employees who have a
financial stake in an organization or community members who are affected by actions of
a particular local establishment have a higher “stake” (i.e., more to lose or gain) when
advocating online.
36
Social networking within online communities can lower barriers that keep publics
from interacting with one another and help build online communities (Cramer, 2009).
According to Kelleher and Miller (2006) there are five characteristics of Web-based
postings based on Merriam Webster’s definition, “1) frequent updating, 2) reverse
chronological order, 3) inclusion of personal journal material, 4) ability of readers to add
comments, and 5) inclusion of hyperlinks.” Public relations practitioners have widely
adopted social media networking, and according to Wright and Hinson (2009), they are
said to be excited about the direction social media is taking by providing “high-speed,
low-cost options for facilitating more two-way communication by opening up direct
channels of communications between organizations and their publics’’ (p. 22).
Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter
Wright and Hinson’s study (2012) summarizing seven annual surveys of
randomly sampled PRSA members indicated that practitioners believe SMS improve
accuracy, credibility, honesty, trust, and truth. Respondents agreed that SMS improved
organizational transparency and ethical behaviors. Results of the study showed that
respondents consider Facebook and LinkedIn to be the most important SMS in terms of
overall communication ability and public relations efforts for organizations, followed by
microblogging sites (e.g., Twitter), search engine marketing (e.g., Google terms), video
sharing sites (e.g., YouTube and Vimeo), then blogs.
The amount of users on social media sites has mushroomed since gaining
popularity. According to Zijtveld and Klinckhamers (2011), each day 250,000 users sign
up to use social networks across the world. In mid-September, Facebook founder Mark
Zuckerberg (2012) announced the site had reached one billion monthly active users.
Simultaneously, Twitter and LinkedIn announced record numbers of users in the
37
millions. Twitter claims to have 100 million active users worldwide after just five years
(“One Hundred Million Voices,” 2011). Whereas the LinkedIn Press Center (2012)
reported being the “world’s largest professional network on the Internet with more than
175 million members in over 200 countries and territories.” The site also reported that
two million companies have LinkedIn Company Pages and executives from all Fortune
500 companies in 2011 were members.
The 2008 PRWeek/Burson-Marsteller CEO Survey reported organizations are
more likely to use Facebook when communicating with stakeholders than any other
social media” (p. 15). LinkedIn, a social networking site founded in 2003, is geared more
toward professional relationship building and learning about businesses and work-
related opportunities (Lindgren, 2011). In 140-characters or less, Twitter is a social
networking site that allows users to create brief “status updates,” or Tweets, and follow
organizations, CEOs, celebrities, and other influencers.
Hypotheses and Research Questions
As mentioned in chapter one, two-way symmetrical communication, perceived
organizational authenticity, and employee advocacy will all be analyzed in this study.
Based on the literature presented, the following hypotheses and research questions are
proposed.
The first hypothesis will test the relationship between two-way symmetrical
communication and perceived organizational authenticity within an organization.
Previous research has found a positive relationship between the two variables.
H1: The more employees perceive communication by their organization as two-way
symmetrical, the more the employees will perceive the organization as authentic.
38
The second hypothesis will test the relationship between perceived
organizational authenticity and employee advocacy. Based on extensive literature on
authenticity (Molleda & Jain, 2013; Molleda, 2010a; Molleda, 2010b), the researcher
chose to formulate a hypothesis rather than to ask a research question about the two
variables’ relationship.
H2: The more employees perceive their organization as authentic, the more the
employees will advocate on behalf of the organization.
The relationship between employee advocacy and social media sites has been
ignored in previous research. This study aims to shed light on the use of social media in
employee advocacy.
R1: To what extent do employees use social media sites to advocate on behalf of their
organization?
A second research question deals with exploring employees’ use of anonymous
rating websites for advocacy. Anonymous rating websites allow employees to advocate
or criticize employers without fear of retribution. Usage of such sites has not been
examined in previous studies of employee advocacy. Therefore, the final research
question is posed as,
R2: To what extent do employees use anonymous rating websites to advocate on
behalf of their organization?
In conclusion, the proposed study will analyze the variables of two-way
symmetrical communication, organizational authenticity, and employee advocacy and
examine the relationships between the three key variables. Previous research has
shown the importance of organizations adopting two-way symmetrical communication
39
and behaving authentically to foster trust and to retain and recruit talent. Practitioners
have called for more studies analyzing the changing landscape of employee
communication during the digital age. Public relations research has neglected to
examine employee advocacy and variables related to it. This study also will take the first
step in gauging employee usage of SMS and anonymous rating websites for advocacy.
40
CHAPTER 3 METHOD
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationships among two-way
symmetrical communication, perceived organizational authenticity, and employee
advocacy, especially in today’s digital age. Quantitative research employing a survey
was used to test the hypotheses and answer the research questions. This chapter
describes the chosen methodology, population studied, the survey instrument,
measurement, and statistical analysis used.
Survey Research
The study used an electronically administered survey for data collection.
According to Wimmer and Dominick (2011), analytical surveys can help explain
relationships between two variables and allow the researcher to create explanatory
inferences. Surveys also allow large amounts of data to be collected easily for little cost
without being constrained by geographic barriers (Babbie, 2010; Bhattacherjee, 2012;
Wimmer & Dominick, 2011).
This survey used multiple questions asking employees about their opinions and
behaviors. According to Bhattacherjee (2011), “Survey research [is] a research method
involving the use of standardized questionnaires or interviews to collect data about
people and their preferences, thoughts, and behaviors in a systematic manner” (p. 75).
According to Burton (2011), most companies already employ qualitative or quantitative
studies to measure internal communications. Of these studies, employees are most
often surveyed about engagement, effectiveness, and credibility of communications.
“Companies are putting more money and effort into their employee communication
41
programs” (p. 14). Therefore, because employees in general are familiar with survey
research methods, utilizing a survey methodology was best suited for the study.
Selection of Organization and Population
The organization chosen for the study is a suburban school district in the
Southeastern United States. The school district agreed to participate on terms of
anonymity. The governmental organization was chosen because it is a large employer
and the researcher was able to gain access to its employees for this study. Several for-
profit businesses were considered, but of the organizations willing to participate, the
school district was more desirable because of its size. The district is the largest
employer in its county and has been the largest employer for more than a decade
according to official county financial reports.
The participating school district is accredited by AdvancED Council on
Accreditation and School Improvement. The district is comprised of over 50 schools at
all levels, including charter schools. According to the State Department of Education,
the school district employed more than 5,500 employees for the past two academic
years (“Staff in Anonymous State,” 2012a).
The researcher pursued access through an application process per the district
requirements. In addition to an official request to conduct research, the researcher was
required to attach an official letter from the “university or agency requesting to conduct
research,” which was provided by the thesis advisor, Dr. Kathleen S. Kelly. The
researcher also was required to provide official Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval forms, a personal résumé or some form of credentials, a copy of the survey
instrument, and informed consent materials (see Appendices). Finally, the researcher
42
also agreed to provide a report of the findings to school district officials and leaders
upon completion of the thesis.
Sampling Frames
A stratified sample of 800 employees of the school district was constructed for
the study. The school district has more than 5,500 full-time employees composed
mainly of teachers, administrators, and non-instructional employees; however, sample
parameters provided by the researcher removed non-instructional employees such as
custodians, bus drivers, cafeteria servers, and groundskeepers. These employees were
removed because those types of positions do not play a direct role in the mission of the
school district, which is to provide students with individual opportunities to excel.
Because these positions have an indirect role with students, in terms of the key
variables measured, publics would be more likely to consult a teacher or administrative
staff member. Therefore, the sample then consisted of two employee categories, or
strata, administrators and teachers.
To build the sample, the school district’s IT staff provided the researcher with a
comprehensive spreadsheet of all administrators and teachers, which included their
names, emails, and position titles. All administrators (161) were chosen to participate in
the study except for the superintendent and the director of evaluation and accountability
because they had approved testing materials and might provide biased results.
Therefore administrators accounted for 159 members of the desired sample size of 800.
The decision to use the administrator population was made in order to have appropriate
representation from the smaller group of constituents.
43
Therefore, 641 teachers were systematically randomly sampled in order to
achieve the desired sample size of 800. A custom script was created and executed that
generated the random sample of teachers using MATLAB, a high-level program for
numerical computation and data analysis. The researcher chose a random number to
begin sampling (488) and a skip interval of five was used to systematically cycle through
the list and choose every fifth teacher until 641 names were generated. Once a name
was selected it was removed from the list, therefore sampling was conducted without
replacement to avoid repeat selection.
The final sample consisted of 159 administrators and 641 teachers. This study
received Institutional Review Board approval (Study #2012-U-1302) on January 17,
2013 (see Appendix B). The next sections will detail the survey instrument and survey
distribution methods.
Survey Instrument and Measurement
The survey instrument was composed of five sections. However, before
participants could begin answering survey items, they were presented with an informed
consent electronically as the first page of the Qualtrics survey. By consenting to the
study, respondents were directed to the survey questions. If respondents did not
consent to the study they were automatically directed to a thank-you message at the
end of the survey. Respondents were required to choose an answer for this question.
However, for all other questions throughout the survey, if respondents did not answer
one or more questions on a page, they were presented with a popup window indicating
that one or more questions had been left unanswered. To proceed, participants had to
decide how they would continue by clicking one of two options, either “Answer the
Question(s)” or “Continue Without Answering.”
44
Two-Way Symmetrical Communication
The first section of the survey presented four items measuring two-way
symmetrical communication that were adopted from Shen and Kim’s (2012) study (see
Table 3-1). The items measure employees’ view of how well leaders provide information
in a timely manner, and encourage and value their personal opinions. Item wording was
modified to reflect organization-employee relationships because the previous study
examined relationships between universities and students. For example, an item from
Shen and Kim (2012) read, “Most communication between students and this
organization can be said to be two-way communication,” and was reworded to “Most
communication between employees and the leaders of this organization can be
described as two-way communication.”
Instructions within the section explained that the statements that followed may or
may not describe communications by their employer, the [Name] County School District.
Participants were then instructed to select a number on the scales provided to respond
to each item. The four items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from
“Strongly Disagree” (1= Strongly Disagree) to “Strongly Agree” (7= Strongly Agree).
Likert scales are the most commonly used scale in mass media research (Wimmer &
Dominick, 2011).
Perceived Organizational Authenticity
The second section presented 10 items intended to gauge employees’
perceptions of their organization’s authenticity, or perceived organizational authenticity
(see Table 3-1). Of the 10 items, the study adopted three selected items from Molleda
and Jain’s (2013) perceived authenticity scale that measured satisfaction, inspiration,
and action. These were combined with all seven items from Shen and Kim’s (2012)
45
perceived authenticity scale, which measured truthfulness, genuineness, and
transparency, to create an extended measurement scale. Each of the previous studies’
scales measured consumer perceptions and, therefore, some items had to be slightly
reworded to be able to gauge organization-employee relationships. Because the
previous study was not asking about the organization’s leaders, as an example, an item
from Shen and Kim’s (2012) study, “I believe that this organization’s actions are
genuine,” became “I believe that the leaders of this organization act genuinely.” Items
from Molleda and Jain (2013) asked visitors of a theme park to rate their visit, therefore,
an item “My visit has been satisfactory,” became “The leadership of this organization is
satisfactory.”
The indicators measure actions and attitudes of the leaders of the organization,
which for this study are representative of the organization’s authenticity. In this section
of the survey, participants were instructed that the statements that followed represent
opinions they may or may not have of the leaders of the [Name] County School District.
Participants were asked to select a number from 1 to 7 for each item measured on a 7-
point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1= Strongly Disagree) to “Strongly
Agree” (7= Strongly Agree).
Employee Advocacy
The third section of the survey shifted from employees’ perceptions to
employees’ behaviors, and intended to gauge employee advocacy. However, because
employee advocacy has never been measured before in public relations research, the
researcher created a scale using indices from Shen and Kim’s (2012) study. Shen and
Kim (2012) tested the relationship between perceived authenticity and positive and
negative messaging using positive and negative messaging scales from Kim and
46
Rhee’s (2009) study. This study in turn adopted the positive and negative messaging
scales, but used them as indicators of employee advocacy.
Therefore, the scale measuring employee advocacy is comprised of four items
that Shen and Kim (2012) used to measure positive messaging, which center on
employees’ praise, promotion, and defense of their organization, and five items for
negative messaging, which center on criticism and willingness to criticize the
organization (see Table 3-1). The survey used questions from the negative messaging
scale as they were adopted, but the researcher intends to reverse the scores when
analyzing the data. The reverse scores will be combined with the original scores from
positive messaging items, which will allow both sets of scores to reflect a positive
direction.
Items measuring employee advocacy asked employees about their personal
communication and were slightly modified to align more with employee respondents
than students. For example, an item from Shen and Kim (2012) was “I feel motivated to
promote this organization to people I meet regularly,” was reworded for this study to “I
feel motivated to promote the leaders of this organization.” Likewise, a negative
statement from Shen and Kim (2012) was “I have criticized this organization to friends
and people I know,” was reworded as “I have criticized the leaders of this organization.”
When answering items for employee advocacy, participants were instructed that
the section was about their personal communications in relation to the [Name] County
School District and that the statements that followed may or may not describe their own
personal communication. Participants were again asked to select a number from 1 to 7
47
and were also measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1=
Strongly Disagree) to “Strongly Agree” (7= Strongly Agree).
Research Questions
The fourth section presented a series of questions and items intended to answer
the study’s research questions. Research question one was first addressed with a
qualifying question that asked participants if they have ever communicated about their
organization using email or social media such as blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter.
If participants answered the question no, they were directed to the next subsection. If
participants answered yes, they were directed to a set of items measuring frequency of
use of five different channels: blogs, email, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.
Instructions directed the participants to rate the channels that followed by
frequency they had used them to communicate about the [Name] County School District
during the last three months. The five items were measured with a 7-point Likert-like
scale ranging from “Never” (1= Never) to “Once a Day at Least” (7= Once a Day at
Least). Participants also had the option to select “I do not use this channel” (N/A), which
the researcher coded as 0. The researcher included an option allowing respondents to
indicate if they do not use this channel (0 = I do not use this channel) separately from
Never (1 = Never) so results were not skewed to show that employees never used sites
to discuss their employer when in fact they do not use the channel at all.
Participants were then asked to rate the overall sentiment of their
communications about the school district during the last three months on the same five
channels. The five items were measured with a 7-point Likert-like scale ranging from
“Very Unfavorable” (1 = Very Unfavorable) to “Very Favorable” (7 = Very Favorable).
48
Again, participants had the option to select “I do not use this channel” (0 = I do not use
this channel).
To evaluate the second research question, participants were asked another
qualifying question, this time asking if they had ever communicated anonymously about
their organization using Internet channels. If participants answered no, they were
directed to the final section of the survey. If participants answered yes, they were
directed to a set of items measuring frequency of use of four different anonymous rating
websites: Glassdoor, Indeed, TaleoUp, or “Other” specified. Instructions directed
participants, based on their anonymous communication, to rate the same channels by
the frequency they had used them to communicate about the [Name] County School
District during the last three months. These items were measured on a 7-point Likert-
like scale ranging from “Never” (1= Never) to “Once a Day at Least” (7 = Once a Day at
Least). Again, the researcher included an option allowing respondents to indicate if they
do not use this channel (0 = I do not use this channel).
Participants were then asked about the overall sentiment of their communications
about the school district during the last three months on the same three anonymous
rating websites and “Other” specified. The items were measured with a 7-point Likert-
like scale ranging from “Very Unfavorable” (1= Very Unfavorable) to “Very Favorable”
(7= Very Favorable). Respondents were able to indicate if they do not use this channel
(0 = I do not use this channel).
General demographic questions were asked at the beginning and end of the
survey in order to begin and end the survey with easier questions, a tactic
recommended to increase survey responses (Wimmer & Dominick, 2011). The
49
demographic information was measured using a combination of nominal, ordinal, and
ratio scales. Participants were asked to provide their age, ethnicity, years of
employment with the school district, current position (teacher, administrator, or other
specified), and highest level of education. An optional closing question was open-ended
and instructed respondents to feel free to add any additional comments they may have
about their relationship with the school district or employer/employee communications.
When respondents completed the questionnaire, they were directed to a thank-you
message, which concluded the survey.
Electronic Survey
To administer the electronic survey, email invitations were created and sent to
each member of the sample. The researcher created an email listserv with the sample
members using a free email marketing website, MailChimp. The website enabled email
invitations and reminders to be personalized with each sample members’ first and last
name. Invitations to participate were sent electronically to participants’ official school
district email addresses on January 22, 2013. Each email contained hyperlinks to the
survey, one inserted in the middle of the message and another repeated at the end (see
Appendix D). Each email contained a sentence stating the survey had been reviewed
and approved by the school district’s director of evaluation and accountability. If
employees had questions or concerns they could contact the director of evaluation and
accountability through personal information included as a carbon copy at the bottom of
each email. Employees who participated filled out the survey anonymously and
participation was voluntary. Survey respondents were assured they would not need any
longer than 10 minutes to participate in the study, which is important for increasing
responses to online surveys because it does not require too much time (Babbie, 2010).
50
Three days after the first invitation was sent, the first reminder email containing
hyperlinks to the survey was sent, which can be seen in Appendix E. A second
reminder was sent in January (sees Appendix F) and a final email was sent thanking
employees for the responses received and reminding employees who had not yet
participated to do so (sees Appendix G). Sending follow-up emails encouraging sample
members to complete surveys is a recommended practice (Babbie, 2010; Wimmer &
Dominick, 2011). Survey respondents were able to complete the survey until March 12,
2013, seven weeks from the original survey invitation. Confirmation of Institutional
Review Board (IRB) approval and copies of the IRB Informed Consent Form are
presented in Appendices B and C.
Data Analysis
Survey data were entered in and analyzed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics 21.
First the researcher calculated mean scores and standard deviations for each variable
and items within each variable set. Indices of the key variables, two-way symmetrical
communication, perceived organizational authenticity and employee advocacy, were
constructed and mean scores and Cronbach’s alphas were computed for the scales.
Using mean scores of the indices, bivariate correlation was conducted to test
hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 1 dealt with the relationship between two-
way symmetrical communication and perceived organizational authenticity. Hypothesis
two dealt with the relationship between perceived organizational authenticity and
employee advocacy. Multiple regression was used to predict the strength of each
variable on employee advocacy. Two-tailed independent sample T-tests were
conducted to examine potential differences between administrator and teacher
respondents.
51
Descriptive statistics were used to answer research question 1, which dealt with
the frequency employees used social media sites and the sentiment conveyed on SMS.
Descriptive statistics were used to answer research question 2, which dealt with the
frequency employees use anonymous rating websites for employee advocacy.
Descriptive statistics also were used to answer demographics of the sample
respondents. Means and standard deviations were calculated for each demographic
variable.
52
Table 3-1. Survey instrument items
Section name Items
Two-way symmetrical communication
Most communication between employees and the leaders of this organization can be described as two-way communication. The leaders of this organization encourage differences of opinion. The leaders of this organization usually inform me about major changes in policy that affect me before they take place.
I feel like the leaders of my organization value my opinion when major changes in policy might affect me.
Perceived organizational authenticity
The leaders of this organization tell the truth. I believe that the leaders of this organization act genuinely. The leadership of this organization is unsatisfactory. I feel like the leaders of my organization are not willing to admit to mistakes when they are made. The leaders of this organization have consistent beliefs and actions. I believe that the leaders of this organization match their behavior to the organization’s core values. I feel that the leaders of this organization accept and learn from mistakes. I do not feel like I am an active part of the decision-making process with my organization’s leaders. I think the leaders of this organization match their rhetoric with their actions. The leaders of this organization inspire me to value my job.
Employee advocacy
I feel motivated to promote the leaders of this organization. Recently, I agreed to negative opinions about the leaders of this organization. I try to network with coworkers. I have praised this organization. Recently, I have not agreed to negative opinions about the leaders of this organization. I have not posted some negative messages about this organization. I have not criticized this organization. I do not feel motivated to criticize the leaders of this organization.
53
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section describes the response
rate and classification of participants by position. The second section describes the
sample and demographics of respondents. The third section reports the results of
analyses of the study’s three key concepts. The fourth section is devoted to addressing
the findings for the two hypothesis and two research questions and the extent to which
variables are related to one another. Finally, the fifth section reports on comments
collected via an open-ended question at the end of the survey.
Response Rates and Participant Classification
A total of 285 surveys were collected, but 26 surveys (9.1%) were discarded due
to incomplete answers and another 14 surveys (4.9%) were discarded because
participants did not consent to the study. This left a total of 245 valid surveys for data
analysis, which yielded a response rate of 30.6%. Some respondents did not disclose
demographic information (e.g., age, ethnicity, or highest level of education).
Demographic question response rates ranged between 239 and 245 responses.
According to Wimmer and Dominick (2011), response rates for Internet surveys are
typically 5% to 80%. The response rate of this survey falls slightly short of the midpoint
but still within the range and, therefore, is considered acceptable.
Respondents were asked to self-classify themselves as teacher, administrator, or
other specified. The majority of respondents classified themselves as teachers (64.5%),
followed by administrators (23.3%) and other (12.2%). The 30 respondents who
classified themselves as “other” specified such positions as coach (math, literacy,
instructional), guidance counselor, and specialist. An article published by the state’s
54
Department of Education (“Staff in Anonymous State,” 2012a) defines which positions
are considered “Administrative” (e.g., assistant principals, principals, and deans) and
which positions are considered “Instructional” (e.g., guidance counselors, specialists,
and psychologists) For purposes of this research, “Instructional Staff” is synonymous
with teachers. Therefore, based on written-in titles employees used, 28 of the 30 “other”
respondents were reclassified as teachers and two were reclassified as administrators.
Including the reclassified respondents, of 159 survey invitations emailed to
administrators, 59 valid surveys were completed for a response rate of 37.1% for the
administrator stratum. The response rate for teachers was slightly lower. Of 641 survey
invitations emailed, 186 valid surveys were completed for a response rate of 29.0% for
the teacher stratum.
Description of Survey Participants
Participants’ age ranged from 23 to 72 years old, with a median age of 49 (M =
47, SD = 11.6). As already touched on, about three-fourths of the 245 participants
(75.9%) were teachers and the rest (24.1%) were administrators. The number of years
they were employed by the county school district ranged from less than one year to 44
years, with a median of 10 years (M = 13, SD = 9.8). This aligns with the average
number of years of experience, 11.4, for full-time teachers in the state reported by the
Department of Education for the 2010-11 academic year (“Teacher salary, experience,”
2012b).
An item constructed by the researcher to measure gender was inadvertently left
out of the survey when transferring questions from a Word document to Qualtrics;
therefore, the gender breakdown of the study’s participants is unknown. However, the
55
gender breakdown of the original sample of 800 was 641 females (80.1%) and 159
males (19.9%), which is very similar to the gender breakdown of the population of full-
time teachers and administrators in the county, which is 78.6% female and 21.2% male
(“Staff in Anonymous State,” 2012a). There is no reason to believe the gender
breakdown of this study’s participants differs dramatically from that of the sample and
county.
The majority of respondents, 205 (84.7%) identified themselves as “White or
Caucasian,” followed by “Black or African American,” 20 (8.3%), “Hispanic or Latino”, 10
(4.1%), “Native American or American Indian,” three (1.2%), and finally “Asian or Pacific
Islander,” one (.4%). Three respondents identified themselves as “Other” (1.2%). These
proportions are similar to statewide figures. According to a survey by the Department of
Education for fall 2011, the majority of full-time teachers and administrators in the state
were White (82.9%), followed by Black (8.5%), Hispanic (5.6%), Asian or Pacific
Islander (0.9%), American Indian (.5%) and Two or More Races (1.4%) ("Staff in
Anonymous State," 2012a).
The highest level of education attained by the plurality of respondents was a
master’s degree, 118 (48.6%), of which 75 were teachers and 43 were administrators.
The second largest group held a bachelor’s degree, 82 (33.7%), of which 80 were
teachers and two were administrators. One respondent or more identified each of the
remaining categories as their highest level of education: some graduate school (9.5%),
some doctoral studies (5.8%), doctoral degree (1.2%), or professional degree (1.2%).
Table 4-1 presents all demographic data about respondents. The demographics
suggest that the study’s participants do not differ substantially from the population from
56
which the stratified, random sample was drawn. Therefore, this study’s findings can be
generalized to all teaching and administrative employees of the school district.
Analyses of Key Concepts
This study measured three key concepts: two-way symmetrical communication,
perceived organizational authenticity, and employee advocacy. Multiple items were
used to measure each concept, and mean scores and standard deviations were
calculated for individual items. Summative scales were constructed from the respective
items to provide one index measurement for each concept. Mean scores and standard
deviations were calculated for the scales, and their reliability and predictability was
computed.
Two-way Symmetrical Communication
Four items were used to measure two-way symmetrical communication. All items
were adopted from Shen and Kim (2012). Mean scores on all four items were above the
neutral point on the 7-point measurement scale, ranging from 4.27 to 5.28. In other
words, employees of the school district perceive an above average level of two-way
symmetrical communication from leaders of their organization. The item earning the
highest mean score was as follows, “The leaders of this organization usually inform me
about major changes in policy that affect me before they take place” (M = 5.28, SD =
1.47). The item earning the lowest mean score was, “I feel like the leaders of my
organization value my opinion when major changes in policy might affect me” (M = 4.27,
SD = 1.77), which still indicated agreement with the statement, albeit weak. Table 4-2
presents the results of the analysis.
As shown in Table 4-2, the mean score of the two-way symmetrical index is 4.67
(SD = 1.34); meaning that, according to its teachers and administrators, the school
57
district does practice two-way symmetrical communication. The scale has relatively high
reliability. Analysis yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85, which is higher than the
minimum alpha set by Carmines and Zeller (1979), 0.80, and substantially higher than
the scale’s reliability in Shen and Kim’s (2012) study, 0.75. The scale’s improved
reliability may be due to this study’s use of real employees of one organization rather
than general college students studied by Shen and Kim.
Perceived Organizational Authenticity
A total of 10 items were used to measure employees’ perceptions of the school
district’s organizational authenticity. Seven of the items were adopted from Shen and
Kim (2012) and the remaining three were from Molleda and Jain (2013). Mean scores
on all 10 items were above the neutral point on the 7-point measurement scale, ranging
from 3.68 to 5.42. All but the lowest mean score were at 4.48 or higher, and half of the
items had mean scores above 5.0. Meaning employees of the school district perceive
an above average level of organizational authenticity by school district leaders. The item
earning the highest mean score simply stated, “The leaders of this organization tell the
truth” (M = 5.42, SD = 1.35). The item earning the lowest mean score was a reversed
item that in its analysis form reads as follows, “I feel like I am an active part of the
decision-making process with my organization’s leaders” (M = 3.68, SD = 1.85). Table
4-3 presents the results of the analysis.
As shown in Table 4-3, the mean score of the perceived organizational
authenticity index is 4.91 (SD = 1.08), meaning that the school districts’ teachers and
administrators perceive their employer as being authentic. The new perceived
organizational authenticity scale, which was constructed by combining measurement
items from Shen and Kim (2012) and Molleda and Jain (2013), is highly reliable.
58
Analysis yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91, which is slightly higher than the reliability
of Shen and Kim’s (2012) perceived organizational authenticity scale, 0.90, and equal to
the reliability of Molleda and Jain’s (2013) authenticity scale, 0.91.
Employee Advocacy
Nine items were used to measure employee advocacy. Four items were adopted
from Shen and Kim’s (2012) scale, positive messaging, and five items were adopted
from their negative messaging scale. Mean scores on all four items in the positive
messaging scale were above the neutral point on the 7-point measurement scale,
ranging from 4.58 to 5.76. The item earning the highest mean score was as follows, “I
try to network with coworkers” (M = 5.76, SD = 1.13). The item earning the lowest mean
score was, “I feel motivated to promote the leaders of this organization” (M = 4.58, SD =
1.62), a score still showing a weak agreement with the statement.
As shown in Table 4-4, the mean score of the positive messaging index is 5.14
(SD = 1.04), meaning that the school districts’ teachers and administrators engage in an
above average level of positive messaging. Analysis yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.72, which is slightly lower than the reliability of Shen and Kim’s (2012) positive
messaging scale, 0.81.
Mean scores for each of the five items measuring negative messaging were well
below the neutral point on the 7-point measurement scale, ranging from 1.36 to 3.21.
The item earning the highest mean score was as follows: “I have criticized this
organization” (M = 3.21, SD = 1.73), a score showing a fairly low disagreement with the
statement. The item earning the lowest mean score was, “I have posted some negative
messages about this organization” (M = 1.36, SD = .91), a score showing a strong
disagreement with the statement. These findings indicate employees of the school
59
district have a moderately low engagement in negative messaging. Analysis yielded a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.68, which is nearly two points lower than the reliability of Shen
and Kim’s (2012) negative messaging scale, 0.87. The results of these analyses are
presented in Table 4-4 as the inverse of the wording and scores just presented, which is
explained in the following paragraph.
Combining these indicators, the four items of positive messaging and the five
items of negative messaging, the researcher developed a new index, employee
advocacy. To measure employee advocacy, the negative messaging items and scores
were reversed so all scores were in a positive direction and each item truly was
measuring “advocacy,” which has a positive connotation. The resulting scale was found
to have moderately strong reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.74 (Bowers &
Courtright, 1984). Reliability will be further discussed in the future research section in
chapter five. Table 4-4 presents the items and scores measuring employee advocacy
and reliability of the scale. The chapter now turns to testing the study’s hypotheses and
answering its research questions.
Hypotheses Testing and Research Questions
The study’s first hypothesis is as follows,
H1: The more employees perceive communication by their organization as two-way
symmetrical, the more the employees will perceive the organization as authentic.
Bivariate correlation was used to analyze the relationship between two-way
symmetrical communication and perceived organizational authenticity. Pearson’s
correlation analysis was conducted on the mean scores of the two-way symmetrical
index and the perceived organizational authenticity index. Results showed that two-way
symmetrical communication and perceived organizational authenticity are positively and
60
significantly related with a strong coefficient (r = 0.75, p < .01) (Cohen, 1998). In other
words, the more employees perceive the school district leaders to use two-way
symmetrical communication, the more they perceive the employer authentically.
Hypothesis one is supported. Results of correlation analysis testing both hypotheses
are presented in Table 4-5.
The study’s second hypothesis is as follows,
H2: The more employees perceive their organization as authentic, the more the
employees will advocate on behalf of the organization.
To test the second hypothesis, bivariate correlation was used to analyze the
relationship between perceived organizational authenticity and employee advocacy.
Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted on the mean scores of the perceived
organizational authenticity index and the employee advocacy index. Perceived
organizational authenticity has a significant and positive correlation with employee
advocacy with a strong coefficient (r = .72, p < .01) (Cohen, 1998). Therefore, the more
school district employees perceive their organization as authentic, the more they
advocate for their employer. Hypothesis two is supported.
Further exploring the data, the strength of the relationships among two-way
symmetrical communication, perceived organizational authenticity and employee
advocacy was tested using multiple regression. Two-way symmetrical communication
and perceived organizational authenticity were used as independent variables while
employee advocacy was the dependent variable. The results of the regression are
presented in Table 4-6.
61
The analysis found that two-way symmetrical communication (β = 0.16, t = 2.35,
p = <.020) and perceived organizational authenticity (β = 0.61, t = 9.07, p = <.000) both
had a significant positive relationship with employee advocacy. Therefore, this
regression model predicts that organizations using two-way symmetrical communication
are expected to have higher employee advocacy. Likewise, a high perceived
organizational authenticity will also predict a higher employee advocacy. Based on a
larger beta weight for perceived organizational authenticity than that of two-way
symmetrical communication, perceived organizational authenticity has a greater impact
on employee advocacy. Two demographic variables, position and years employed by
the organization, were added to the regression as independent control variables. The
control variables were not significant predictors of employee advocacy and with their
addition the same patterns were observed, thus indicating that the regression is more
robust.
The regression model was a good fit for the data, explaining 53.0% (adjusted R2)
of the variance in employee advocacy (R2 = .534, F (2, 242) = 138.77, p = <.000).
Multicollinearity among the variables was not an issue because the variance inflation
factor (VIF) was less than 10 (VIF = 2.316). However, the variables could not be tested
for mediation because of high multicollinearity between the two independent variables
when multiplied together.
To examine potential differences between teacher and administrator
respondents, a series of two-tailed, independent sample t-tests were conducted.
Results of the t-tests show that there are statistically significant differences between
administrators and teachers for each of the three key variables of two-way symmetrical
62
communication (t = -4.62, df = 241, p < .01), perceived organizational authenticity (t = -
5.41, df = 241, p < .01), and employee advocacy (t = -5.02, df = 241, p < .01). In short,
these findings indicate administrators perceive more two-way symmetrical and
organizational authenticity and, therefore, they tend to advocate more for the
organization, while teachers, who perceive lower two-way symmetrical communication
and organizational authenticity, tend to advocate less. As the sample size differs
substantially between the two groups, these results may violate the assumption of equal
sample size. These findings are presented in Table 4-7.
The study’s research questions dealt with use of social and other digital media in
employee advocacy. The first question is as follows,
R1: To what extent do employees use social media sites to advocate on behalf of their
organization?
To answer the first research question, respondents were asked if they had ever
communicated about their organization using email or social media such as blogs,
Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter. Of 245 valid responses, 22 (9.0%) respondents said
they had used email or social media to communicate about their organization. Of the
channels employees could choose (blogs, email, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter), email
and Facebook were the most popular choice of channels to discuss the organization,
although the number of employees using SMS for employee advocacy was low.
Email was used by 17 respondents (6.9%) and Facebook was used by 11 respondents
(4.5%). Of the remaining channels, one respondent used blogs to discuss his/her
employer (0.4%), and LinkedIn and Twitter were not used (n = 0). These findings are
presented Table 4-8.
63
The sentiment expressed on each communication channel did depend somewhat
on the channel being used. Respondents were more likely to write favorable opinions
about their organization using email (M = 4.86) or Facebook (M = 3.59). In addition to
being more likely to write opinions with positive sentiment on email or Facebook,
employees wrote opinions with a positive sentiment on email or Facebook more
frequently than other SMS. Respondents were more likely to express negative opinions
about their organization using blogs (M = 0.31), LinkedIn (M = 0.05) or Twitter (M =
0.05). These findings are presented in Table 4-9.
The second research questions is as follows,
R2: To what extent do employees use anonymous rating websites to advocate on
behalf of their organization?
This research question aimed to investigate the extent to which employees are
willing to advocate for their employer anonymously. Of 245 respondents, only one
indicated he or she had communicated anonymously about the organization using
Internet channels. Of the channels the respondent could choose (Glassdoor, Indeed,
TaleoUp, or Other), the respondent chose none and did not specify another anonymous
rating website that was used. To answer RQ2, at this time the school district employees
do not use anonymous rating websites to advocate on behalf of their employer.
Open-Ended Question Responses
In a final open-ended survey question completed by employees at the school
district, 43 responses were recorded (17.6% of respondents). Twelve of the responses
focused on communications between the organization and employees. Comments such
as “We all have open communication,” “I collaborate with my colleagues and I
64
communicate with my administrators,” and “I believe the District tries to communicate
effectively with everyone,” supported the findings that employees believe the
organization’s communications are two-way symmetrical.
However, of the 12 communication-related comments, nine seemed to convey
either neutral or negative perceptions of communication. Some of these comments
indicated “Although there are times that communication comes from leadership in a
timely manner, sometimes it does not. When this occurs many of the faculty and staff
members feel left in the dark,” “[The] school district has poor communication with their
staff,” and “The communication of information beyond the school level is for the most
part one-way, top down.”
Other comments focused specifically on leadership. The researcher categorized
10 statements as having a positive sentiment about the leadership, and 10 statements
as having a negative sentiment about the leadership. Some of the positive comments
were, “I am in the best school in [county name] and I value the leaders at my work,” and
“I love [Name] County Schools and our Superintendent, my direct supervisor, and our
leadership team.”
However, negative comments were typically much longer in length and often
pinpointed several issues that were of concern to the respondent. Some of the negative
comments included these excerpts, “I would like when they ask for our opinion that they
take them into consideration,” “I feel a classroom teacher's input should be valued more
by county office personnel when making major decisions concerning his/her classroom,
or a particular student in the classroom,” “I do not feel valued as an educator,” and “I
feel that a weak administrator is moved to the county level instead of being demoted or
65
released.” In this section, the term “Good Ole Boy System” was mentioned twice, one
respondent saying it had been replaced by a “Good Ole Girl System.”
Three comments were made regarding social media sites. One comment
expressed positive sentiment, “When using social networks or email to communicate
about my organization, it is nearly always about my students and how awesome they
are...or an upcoming fundraiser.” Contrarily, two comments seemed to have a more
negative sentiment. One of these said, “There is a policy in place that states we are not
allowed to say anything, in any form of communication that is disparaging about our
school, employees, or district unless we no longer wish to be employed.”
Finally, some respondents inserted comments that indicate some limitations to
the study while others made suggestions about teaching strategies in particular.
Comments about specific education strategies are not included because they do not
relate to the study. Three comments indicated limitations. Two participants said it was
hard to distinguish which level of leaders the survey was asking questions, leaders at
the individual school level or leaders at the county district level? One respondent said,
“It is difficult to communicate my opinion because we have 5 administrators at our
school and I work closely with County Officer personnel. They are all different and it is
hard to group them all into one category.” Another comment was about lack of clarity in
questions about SMS. “The question about whether or not I communicate about my
employer using email or social media is confusing. I am unsure whether the question
refers to whether I have expressed personal opinions about my employer or if I have
used it to convey information to another district, the public, news agency, etc. as part of
my normal job duties.”
66
By examining employees of a large government organization, the researcher
analyzed employee advocacy for the first time in the field of public relations. The
research findings support hypotheses one and two, showing strong positive
relationships among all variables tested: two-way symmetrical communication,
perceived organizational authenticity and employee advocacy. Results related to the
research questions showed minimal use of SMS and anonymous rating websites for
employee advocacy. These findings provide empirical evidence of the linkage between
organizational behavior and employee advocacy, as well as current low usage of digital
media for employee advocacy. These and other findings are discussed in-depth and
implications for public relations practitioners and scholars are presented in chapter five.
67
Table 4-1. Demographics of respondents Variable Category Teachers
Frequencies (Percentage)
Administrators Frequencies (Percentages)
Position (n=245) 186 (75.9%) 59 (24.1%)
Race (n=242) Asian/Pacific Islander Black/African-American Hispanic/Latino Native American/American Indian White/Caucasian Other
1 (0.5%) 10 (5.4%) 9 (4.9%) 3 (1.6%) 159 (86.4%) 2 (1.1%)
0 10 (17.2%) 1 (1.7%) 0 46 (79.3%) 1 (1.3%)
Age (n=239)
Less than 30 years old 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 years and older
17 (9.3%) 39 (21.4%) 43 (23.6%) 56 (30.8%) 27 (14.8%) 0
0 6 (10.5%) 16 (28.1%) 22 (38.6%) 12 (21.1%) 1 (0.2%)
Years Employed by the Organization (n=243)
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 21-30 years 31-40 years More than 40 years
50 (27.0%) 56 (30.3%) 48 (25.9%) 20 (10.8%) 10 (5.4%) 1 (5.4%)
6 (10.5%) 15 (26.3%) 16 (28.1%) 17 (29.8%) 2 (3.5%) 1 (1.8%)
Highest Level of Education (n=243)
4-year College Degree (BA,BS) Some Graduate School Master’s Degree Some Doctoral Studies Doctoral Degree (PhD, EdD) Professional Degree (MD,JD)
80 (43.2%) 21 (11.2%) 75 (40.5%) 8 (4.3%) 0 1 (0.05%)
2 (3.4%) 2 (3.4%) 43 (74.1%) 6 (10.3%) 3 (5.2%) 2 (3.4%)
68
Table 4-2. Means and standard deviations of two-way symmetrical communication items and scale
Items M SD
Most communication between employees and the leaders of this organization can be described as two-way communication.
4.73 1.58
The leaders of this organization encourage differences of opinion.
4.38 1.63
The leaders of this organization usually inform me about major changes in policy that affect me before they take place.
5.28 1.47
I feel like the leaders of my organization value my opinion when major changes in policy might affect me.
4.27 1.77
Index (α = .85) 4.67 1.34
69
Table 4-3. Means and standard deviations of perceived organizational authenticity items and scale
Items M SD
The leaders of this organization tell the truth. 5.42 1.35
I believe that the leaders of this organization act genuinely.
5.39 1.31
The leadership of this organization is satisfactory.* 5.36 1.46
I feel like the leaders of my organization are willing to admit to mistakes when they are made.*
4.48 1.62
The leaders of this organization have consistent beliefs and actions.
5.07 1.36
I believe that the leaders of this organization match their behavior to the organization’s core values.
5.27 1.31
I feel that the leaders of this organization accept and learn from mistakes.
4.93 1.33
I feel like I am an active part of the decision-making process with my organization’s leaders.*
3.68 1.85
I think the leaders of this organization match their rhetoric with their actions.
4.89 1.32
The leaders of this organization inspire me to value my job.
4.58 1.69
Index (α = .91) 4.91 1.08
*Reversed item
70
Table 4-4. Means and standard deviations of employee advocacy items and scale Positive Messaging (α = .72)
M (5.14)
SD (1.04)
I feel motivated to promote the leaders of this organization. 4.58 1.62
I try to network with coworkers. 5.76 1.13
I have praised this organization. 5.19 1.39
I cannot help speaking up when I hear ignorant and biased comments about this organization.
5.05 1.48
Reversed Negative Messaging (α = .68) M (5.54) SD (.96)
Recently, I have not agreed to negative opinions about the leaders of this organization.
5.02 1.65
I have not posted some negative messages about this organization.
6.64 .91
I have not criticized this organization. 4.79 1.73
I do not feel motivated to criticize the leaders of this organization.
5.50 1.48
I usually do not avoid networking with coworkers. 5.76 1.31
Index (α = .74) 5.34 .82
71
Table 4-5. Pearson correlation coefficients among two-way symmetrical communication, perceived organizational authenticity, and employee advocacy
Two-way Symmetrical Communication
Perceived organizational authenticity
Employee Advocacy
Two-way Symmetrical Communication
________
Perceived Organizational Authenticity
.754** ________
Employee Advocacy
.613** .724** ________
**p < .01
Table 4-6. Results of regression analysis for employee advocacy
Independent Variables β t p
Two-way Symmetrical Communication
0.16 2.35 <.020
Perceived Organizational Authenticity
0.61 9.07 <.000
Adjusted R2 .530
R2 .534
F 138.77 df 2, 242 p <.000
72
Table 4-7. T-test results of differences in scores between teachers and administrators Variable Teachers
n = 186 Administrators
n = 59
M SD M SD t df p
Two-way Symmetrical Communication
4.45 1.32
5.35
1.20 -4.62 241 .000
Perceived Organizational Authenticity
4.71 1.06 5.55 .92 -5.41 241 .000
Employee Advocacy
5.20 .80
5.80
.74 -5.02 241 .000
Table 4-8. Respondents’ use of social media sites for employee advocacy
N = 22 % of total respondents
Blogs 1
0.4%
Email 17 8.8%
Facebook 11 4.5%
LinkedIn 0 0%
Twitter 0 0%
73
Table 4-9. Respondents’ message sentiment about employer on social media sites M SD
Blogs 0.31 1.29
Email 4.86 2.23
Facebook 3.59 2.92
LinkedIn 0.05 .21
Twitter 0.05 .21
Note: 1 = very unfavorable and 7 = very favorable
74
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to strengthen and expand the body of knowledge
on the relationships among three variables: two-way symmetrical communication,
perceived organizational authenticity and employee advocacy. By examining employees
of a large government organization, the study demonstrated a strong relationship
between two-way symmetrical communication and perceived organizational
authenticity. It also was the first of its kind that showed a strong relationship between
perceived organizational authenticity and employee advocacy. There is also a
moderately strong relationship between two-way symmetrical communication and
employee advocacy. In other words, organizations that use more two-way symmetrical
communication with their employees and engage in authentic behavior can increase an
employee’s perceived organizational authenticity thus increasing employee advocacy.
Previous studies (Shen & Kim, 2012; Molleda & Jain, 2013) found strong
relationships between two-way symmetrical communication and perceived
organizational authenticity. This study further strengthened those findings. However, no
previous studies had applied the concept of advocacy, a desired relationship outcome,
to employees. This study shed new light on the relationship between organizations and
its employee stakeholders and the missing opportunity for advocacy-at-scale in today’s
environment. This study was also the first to test the Arthur W. Page Society’s (2012)
most recent model for activating corporate character and authentic advocacy within
large enterprises.
The first section of this chapter will discuss the study’s findings and the second
section will explain practical and theoretical implications for public relations
75
professionals and scholars. To conclude the paper, the chapter will present the study’s
limitations and potential ideas for future research.
Summary of the Findings
This study was the first to measure the concepts of two-way symmetrical
communication and perceived organizational authenticity on employee advocacy. By
utilizing two-way symmetrical communication, this study demonstrates that perceived
organizational authenticity will be greater and employee advocacy will also increase.
Employees can be one of the strongest contributors to an organization’s reputation and
publics’ awareness of an organization. Results from this study also advanced the field of
public relations by targeting employee stakeholders, on whom no previous studies have
dealt with two-way symmetrical communication and perceived organizational
authenticity. Findings indicated the employees of the school district believe the
organization employs two-way symmetrical communication. While the employees do not
strongly believe their organization uses two-way symmetrical communication and have
only a slightly higher perception of organizational authenticity, these findings provide the
first step in analyzing the relationship between the two variables, which was strong.
Two-way symmetrical communication was used as a framework for this study
because it has been shown to be the most ethical means of communicating and plays a
role in employee trust and loyalty (Burton, 2006a; Burton, 2006b; Burton, 2011a; Burton,
2011b; Kent & Taylor, 2002). Employees indicated they would be more likely to perceive
the organization as authentic if that organization engaged in two-way symmetrical
communication. Thus, findings support that the use of two-way symmetrical
communication in increasing perceived organizational authenticity is essential. Based
on the survey questionnaire, there are several ways to increase perceived
76
organizational authenticity by utilizing the theories of two-way symmetrical
communication and the model of excellence.
The results also indicated a strong positive relationship between perceived
organizational authenticity and employee advocacy. Results suggest support of
previous findings in trade publications indicating the relationship between an
organization’s corporate character and employees’ advocacy is mediated by employees’
perception of authenticity (Carr, 2012; Church, 2012; Walton, 2010). Employees
indicated that they perceived the organization to be authentic, which has been shown to
be increasingly more important because stakeholders demand “greater transparency,
openness, and responsibility” (Molleda, 2010b, p. 223).
This study shed new light on the relationship between an organization and its
employee stakeholders and highlighted the missing opportunity for advocacy at scale in
today’s environment. Findings present the first empirical data to support the 2012 Arthur
W. Page Society’s report recommendations, and results indicate that employee
advocacy can be achieved the more employees perceive an organization as authentic.
Without employees’ strong perception of organizational authenticity, they are less likely
to build advocacy at scale, thus supporting recommendations from the report, which
also suggests action steps for leaders of organizations corporate communications and
public relations. While findings from this study are not generalizable beyond the school
district, the researcher believes that the relationship between two-way symmetrical
communication and perceived organizational authenticity would not differ significantly if
tested in other organizations.
77
This study found that the majority of respondents believed the school district
used two-way symmetrical communication and perceived the organization to be
authentic. The school district began using SMS Facebook, Twitter and publishing a
Wordpress blog in 2011, factors that may have contributed to these findings. Wright and
Hinson (2012) found that public relations practitioners believe SMS can improve
credibility, accuracy, honesty, and truth. According to the Arthur W. Page Society
reports (2007; 2012), organizations that use these SMS should have a higher perceived
organizational authenticity. These may be indicators that the SMS utilized by leaders at
the school district enhanced trust in addition to increasing perceived organizational
authenticity.
In previous studies by PRWeek and Burson-Marsteller (2008), Facebook was
identified as the most common SMS used by public relations practitioners when
communicating with stakeholders. These findings were supported when applied to
employee publics at the school district. While email was the most frequently used
communication channel to discuss something with an employer, Facebook was the
second most frequent and the only true SMS used by the employees other than blogs.
Blogs were used by only one employee and had a more negative association whereas
email and Facebook were used more for advocacy.
This study partially supported findings by Wright and Hinson (2012), considering
Facebook and LinkedIn to be the most important SMS for communication and public
relations efforts by members of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). The
next most important SMS, according to PRSA members, were microblogging sites like
Twitter, followed by search engine marketing, video sharing sites and then blogs. When
78
turning to employees, this study did support Wright and Hinson’s (2012) findings that
Facebook was the most important SMS for advocacy. However, employees used blogs
second-most and did not use LinkedIn and Twitter at all to discuss their organization.
This shows a discrepancy between public relations practitioners’ perceptions and
employees’ usage of SMS based on current usage. This may also indicate an area that
could use more research, comparing activities by public relations practitioners and
employees and gauging non-employee publics’ reception to different communication
using SMS.
Despite the lack of participation on anonymous Internet channels indicated by
respondents, some information was posted on the Internet on anonymous rating
websites about the organization. One anonymous rating website, Glassdoor, lists six
reviews for the organization, all of which are under “Satisfied,” “Neutral – OK,” or
“Dissatisfied” categories (other categories are “Very Satisfied” or “Very Dissatisfied”).
Reviews were posted anonymously by individuals who were able to write in job titles for
themselves, including current teacher (2), current IT technician, current educator, former
teacher and current employee. Reviews by these individuals that explained feelings and
ratings about the organization had titles including “It’s ok,” “Top heavy administration
leaves students and teachers helpless,” “Expects a lot but gives little,” and “Very poorly
managed school district; teachers treated like temps.” Comments were posted on the
website between November 2011 and February 2013, indicating that reviews about the
organization have been present on the website for nearly two years. In addition, the
information displayed on the website seems to indicate a more negative perception of
the organization than indicated in survey results. This finding indicates that further
79
research is needed to understand employees’ willingness to post negative information
about employers when able to do so anonymously.
One survey respondent indicated using anonymous messaging to discuss his or
her employer, a number similar to the proportion of total district employees versus those
who have posted on Glassdoor, both very small. However, whereas few employees
have used Glassdoor to post a review about the school district, no information is
available as to how many people have viewed the reviews. Reviews on Glassdoor are
free and open for the public to view. The researcher would like to stress that these
findings show that anonymous rating websites are used, but the impact on perceived
organizational authenticity and employee advocacy are unknown and could be
measured in future studies.
Altogether these findings provide a wealth of knowledge about the relationships
among two-way symmetrical communication, perceived organizational authenticity and
employee advocacy. In addition, new data about employees’ usage of different types of
emergent digital channels provide insights that can be used to support future research.
Theoretical and practical implications have been extracted from the findings and are
presented in the next section.
Implications for Public Relations Theory
This study supported strong relationships among two-way symmetrical
communication, perceived organizational authenticity, and employee advocacy. These
findings imply that the more two-way symmetrical communication is employed, the more
the organization and its leaders are perceived as authentic and encourages employee
advocacy. Findings suggest that the two-way symmetrical model posed by J. Grunig &
80
Hunt (1984), is an even more valuable foundation for studies in public relations today
despite the ever-changing environment.
This study applied an extended scale of perceived organizational authenticity to a
new sector, employees, in a government organization. Molleda and Jain (2013)
measured perceived organizational authenticity with consumers in the tourism industry
and Shen and Kim (2012) studied students, who were consumers of a university. Based
on the high reliability of the new extended scale, scholars could utilize the scale in other
areas of which have not measured perceived organizational authenticity such as for-
profit organizations, Fortune 500 organizations, or nonprofits. Due to its high reliability,
the new extended perceived organizational authenticity scale created by the researcher
should be further tested and improved through other studies.
This study also contributed to theory by incorporating the scales for positive and
negative messaging as a way of measuring the new construct of advocacy. As
recommended by practitioner literature (Arthur W. Page Society, 2007; Arthur W. Page
Society, 2012), advocacy at scale should be achieved in today’s organizations. This
study was the first to introduce advocacy at scale as a relational outcome of two-way
symmetrical communication and perceived organizational authenticity. This adds a
valuable foundation for future studies of advocacy to the field of public relations.
To build theory, scholars should further develop, modify and test the new
employee advocacy scale to increase its reliability and further advance the constructs of
employee advocacy and advocacy at scale. By engaging a larger number of employees
conducting advocacy and empowering employees to use tools and materials provided
by the organization, the organization could have even higher perceived authenticity and
81
improved reputational outcomes. This study implies that these steps would lead to
satisfaction of the Arthur W. Page Society’s (2012) model with advocacy at scale,
although scholars would need to research this further in other organizations, especially
those with large corporate environments like Fortune 500 companies and other for-profit
businesses.
Implications for Public Relations Practice
In order to study employee advocacy, it was first necessary to look at two-way
symmetrical communication because of its strong relationship with perceived
organizational authenticity. Based on the literature review and information from
practitioner literature, this study provides the first attempt to build upon previous studies
of the relationship between advocacy and perceived organizational authenticity by
studying employee advocacy specifically. This study found that employees were more
likely to advocate for their employer than spread negative messages, but employees
were not advocating frequently and few employees were discussing their employer at
all. This leaves a high potential for growth in building advocacy and advancing toward
advocacy at scale. Employees must be empowered to advocate before they can inspire
others to become advocates (Church, 2012).
Based on the items measuring the key variables studied, recommendations are
made to the leaders of public relations or communications at organizations to improve
two-way symmetrical communication. The first recommendation is organizations should
encourage their employees to have differences of opinion, or rather; organizations
should not force employees to have a singular opinion. The second recommendation
would be for organizational leaders to inform employees about policy changes that will
82
affect them before any policy change is enacted. A third recommendation would be for
organizations to value employee opinions when creating policies that might affect them.
According to Bowen (2005b), in order for the two-way symmetrical model to be
successful, open communication and dialogue are essential. Study findings provided
evidence that the school district studied effectively utilized two-way communication with
its employees. In addition to quantitative results, the survey asked one open-ended
question, in which one respondent stated, “I am very happy where I am working. I have
no complaints. We all have open communication.” Yet the district should not rest on its
laurels based on the findings. Mean scores on the two-way communication index
showed that numerous employees viewed the district’s communications as one-way
and authoritarian. As one teacher stated, “The communication of information beyond the
school level is for the most part one-way, top down.” These opinions are not surprising
because the mean of two-way symmetrical communication was only slightly higher than
the midpoint.
According to the survey, the school district leaders have room for improvement.
They should continue to inform employees of major changes in policy beforehand
because this survey item had the highest score. Additionally, employees of the district
indicated the leaders of the organization could improve the value placed on employees'
opinions when making policy changes. These findings suggest the need for a qualitative
or mixed-method approach in future studies; an idea discussed more in the final section
of the chapter.
Based on the findings of the study, organizational leaders should follow certain
standards to increase perceived organizational authenticity. These standards, based on
83
items measured in the survey, would require leaders to be truthful, act genuinely, show
consistent beliefs and actions, match behavior to the organization’s core values, admit,
accept and learn from mistakes, include employees in the decision-making process,
match their rhetoric to their actions, and inspire employees to value their organization
and jobs. These principles apply just as much when stakeholders, such as employees,
are using digital communications, which some have deemed to be more authentic than
traditional sources (Molleda, 2010b; Quandt, 2012).
The school district studied did not ban its employees from using SMS, but overall
there appears to be a local and even national climate that disapproves of educators
utilizing social media to talk about their jobs (Marino, 2011). Communications between
teachers and students can have serious consequences and have led to restrictive social
media policies placed on educators as a whole. Simultaneously, there is a new focus
nationwide on bullying, mostly of school-aged children, which has created a heightened
“watchdog” type of regulation of social media use by students and educators alike.
Some teachers have even been suspended for publishing questionable views
associated with bullying (Rodriguez, 2011). Regardless, while these factors may have
diminished the level of employee advocacy observed in my study, studying them could
further the understanding of employee advocacy in education.
According to Brito (2012a; 2012b) and Carr (2012), to build advocacy companies
need to train their employees to use SMS and train them how to advocate. However,
the article recommends that employers start by training a small group of “employee
influencers” before encouraging all employees to engage in advocacy. Employers can
choose this small group of employees to train, based on whether or not they are already
84
fairly proficient at using SMS. After testing this small group of advocates, the
organization can employ a social media certification or education program that teaches
best practices, conversation skills and ways to engage in two-way symmetrical
communication. These tactics are just one of many options in which employers could
invest to increase employee advocacy.
This concept is very similar to the model that has already been adopted by
PepsiCo (Carr, 2012). PepsiCo’s employees were trained and enabled to share
information with friends and family rather than being referenced to a webpage or an
official press release. The organization was able to gain greater attention and increased
advocacy by empowering its employees to share information in addition to the
organization’s traditional information-sharing methods. This study supports the need to
allow more members of an organization to engage in two-way symmetrical
communications with publics based on the importance of two-way symmetrical
communication’s relationship with perceived organizational authenticity.
By making these changes, organizations practicing two-way symmetrical
communication could increase perceived authenticity and create advocacy at scale from
the efforts of public relations practitioners and employees combined. These results
could have a greater impact on corporate character and perceived organizational
authenticity. Scholars could focus future research efforts on measuring how
organizations could design and implement these advocacy-training courses or
certification options and the best way they could be successfully executed by
organizations.
85
Limitations and Future Research Recommendations
While this study contributed to the field of public relations by enhanced
understanding of advocacy and its relationship to two-way symmetrical communication
and perceived organizational authenticity, there were several limitations that provide
opportunities for future studies. One significant drawback was the lack of data based on
respondents’ gender. The item measuring gender was inadvertently left out of the
survey used to collect data in Qualtrics. This oversight left unanswered questions
related to ways in which male employees' perceptions may have differed from female
perceptions about organizational authenticity and advocacy behavior. Although the
gender breakdown of the sample was representative of the population, the researcher
was unable to show any relationships between gender and other variables within the
survey responses.
For future research, more demographic variables should be considered. A two-
part typology of types of employees would not fit well with more complex organizations,
so a variable adding a hierarchy of positions could be added to multiple groups of
employees. For example, even though two titles like assistant director and associate
director might both be considered to be administrative roles, there may be statistical
differences within the results of the two different groups. Thus, future research could
focus on a more hierarchical approach when measuring employee positions.
The most important recommendation for future research would be to adopt,
modify and test the new scales created in this study by the researcher. The high
reliability of the perceived organizational authenticity scale provides a valuable
opportunity for future researchers who would like to measure this construct. For the new
employee advocacy scale, more development and modification is necessary. In future
86
work, it may be possible to reduce the number of items within the scale to increase its
reliability. While the reliability of the current scale was acceptable, a stronger reliability
may be achievable.
A second limitation to the study may have been the timing of when the survey
was administered. Because the sample surveyed were administrators and teachers,
sending the survey in January may have lowered the response rate because it was the
beginning of a new academic semester. Teachers and administrators typically are very
busy throughout the academic year, but sending the survey in the middle of a semester
may have produced a higher response rate. This also presents another potential
limitation. The researcher only studied two employee groups: teachers and
administrators. Results may have been richer or presented different results if those
categories were further segmented. For example, teachers could have been broken into
counselors and classroom instructors or administrators could be segmented by
assistant principals and principals. By segmenting the strata into more categories, it
might be easier to identify variations based on employees who work more closely with
the leadership on a day-to-day basis versus employees who are more distant from
leadership.
Finally, a third limitation was the researcher’s choice of the professional field of
education. While the organization was chosen because it was the largest employer in
the area and accessible, recent articles have been published warning teachers to stay
away from social media and Facebook while at work (Marino, 2011; Solomon, 2011).
These warnings could have affected the volume of employees using SMS. Future
studies could choose to replicate the study in other professional fields or groups such as
87
the healthcare profession, Fortune 500 companies, public relations agencies or any
other field that would have a more open and encompassing employee policy toward
SMS communication. Also, while this study engaged participants who were all
employed by one organization, future studies could collect data from employees from a
variety of organizations to test this concept and gather data that expands on the
variable relationships.
Future research could also turn to different methods to measure employee
advocacy that could add a deeper understanding of why employees advocate.
Practitioner articles suggest (Burton, 2006a; Burton, 2006b; Burton, 2011a, Burton,
2011b; Walton, 2010) if employees are unaware of the benefits of advocacy, they are
not motivated to engage in discussions outside of the workplace. A qualitative
methodology or mixed methodology approach combining survey questions with a
content analysis, focus groups, or interviews could add tremendous value to the
understanding of advocacy and its relationship to two-way symmetrical communication
and perceived organizational authenticity. Questions might include, “What motivates
you to discuss your employer?,” “What makes you trust your employer?,” “What
motivates you to continue working for your employer?,” “Why do you use/not use social
media sites to discuss your employer?,” and other open-ended questions. These
questions could incite respondents to disclose more detailed information about their
feelings, attitudes, and actions toward their employer.
Finally, while results received from the quantitative survey instrument provided a
better picture of employees’ usage of SMS, results only gauged employees’ frequency
and sentiment expressed using SMS. Future studies could incorporate other qualitative
88
research methods and ask employees reasons why they use SMS to advocate. As an
example from the open-ended survey question, one respondent said, “I do not use
email to discuss personal opinions about my employer or actions made by the District.”
Without knowing why some employees use or avoid social media sites to discuss their
organization, it is premature for scholars to make recommendations whether employees
should be encouraged or discouraged from continuing such behavior.
In conclusion, this study has further advanced the field of public relations by
strengthening evidence of the relationship between two-way symmetrical
communication and perceived organizational authenticity. This study has also provided
a new understanding of employee advocacy and its relationship to perceived
organizational authenticity. The relationships studied were significant and should
continue to be the focus of new research in the future, particularly related to expanding
theory in public relations.
89
APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE
INFORMED CONSENT Employee Research Study [Name] County School District Dear [Name] County School District Employee: Thank you for taking the time to consider participating in this research study, which is being conducted by Callie Polk, a graduate student in mass communication at the University of Florida. [Name] County School District administrators provided your email address to Ms. Polk to assist in her research. The study consists of an online survey that asks questions about your perceptions of your employer, the [Name] County School District, and your communication about your employer. Your participation is important, as you are one of only a small group of school district employees selected for this research. As noted below, your participation is voluntary and answers will be recorded anonymously. Please read this consent document before you decide to participate in the study. If you agree to participate, click "I Consent" and press the arrow button to be directed to an online questionnaire. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between organizational authenticity and employee advocacy. What you will be asked to do in the study: If you consent to this study, you will be directed to a brief questionnaire that should take you about 10 minutes to complete online. The survey asks questions about your perceptions of your employer and your communication about your employer. Your answers will be collected online and will be anonymous. Time required: About 10 minutes Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated risks or benefits to you as a participant in this survey. Compensation: None. Confidentiality: Your participation in the study will be anonymous. Your identity will not be known and no identifying information will be collected or associated with your responses. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating.
90
Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Callie Polk, Graduate Student, College of Journalism and Communications, P.O. BOX 118400 Gainesville, FL. US 32611-8400, [email protected]; or Kathleen Kelly, Faculty Supervisor, College of Journalism and Communications, P.O. BOX 118400 Gainesville, FL. US 32611-8400. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone (352) 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the Informed Consent document. By selecting "I Consent," I voluntarily agree to participate in the research study. I CONSENT (Please click the arrow button below to continue.)
I DO NOT CONSENT
Thank you for consenting to participate in this survey. The survey should take you about
10 minutes to complete. Please answer all questions. Your feedback is very important.
What is your current position at the [Name] County School District? Teacher
Administrator
Other (Please Specify) ____________________
How many years have you been employed by your organization? (Example: 14)
In Years... __________ The first section is about your employer, the [Name] County School District. Please select a number on the scales provided to respond to each item. The following statements may or may not describe communication by the [Name] County School District. Please select a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means you Strongly Disagree with the statement and 7 means you Strongly Agree with the statement.
91
Strongly Disagree
1
Disagree 2
Somewhat Disagree
3
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
4
Somewhat Agree 5
Agree 6
Strongly Agree 7
1. Most communication
between employees and the leaders of
this organization
can be described as
two-way communication.
2. The leaders of this
organization encourage
differences of opinion.
3. The leaders of this
organization usually inform
me about major changes in policy that affect me
before they take place.
4. I feel like the leaders of my organization
value my opinion when
major changes in policy might
affect me.
92
The following statements represent opinions you may or may not have of the leaders of the [Name] County School District. Please select a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means you Strongly Disagree with the statement and 7 means you Strongly Agree with the statement.
Strongly Disagree
1
Disagree 2
Somewhat Disagree
3
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
4
Somewhat Agree 5
Agree 6
Strongly Agree 7
5.The leaders of this
organization tell the truth.
6. I believe that the
leaders of this organization
act genuinely.
7. The leadership of
this organization is unsatisfactory.
8. I feel like the leaders of
my organization
are not willing to admit to mistakes
when they are made.
9. The leaders of this
organization have
consistent beliefs and
actions.
10. I believe that the
leaders of this organization match their
93
behavior to the
organization’s core values.
11. I feel that the leaders of
this organization accept and learn from mistakes.
12. I do not feel like I am an active part
of the decision-making
process with my
organization’s leaders.
13. I think the leaders of this organization match their rhetoric with their actions.
14. The leaders of this organization inspire me to value my job.
The second section of the survey is about your personal communication in relation to the [Name] County School District. The following statements may or may not describe your communication. Please select a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means you Strongly Disagree with the statement and 7 means you Strongly Agree with the statement.
94
Strongly Disagree
1
Disagree 2
Somewhat Disagree
3
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
4
Somewhat Agree 5
Agree 6 Strongly Agree 7
15. I feel motivated to promote the leaders of
this organization.
16. Recently, I agreed to negative opinions about the leaders of
this organization.
17. I try to network with coworkers.
18. I have posted some
negative messages about this
organization.
19. I have praised this
organization.
20. I cannot help
speaking up when I hear ignorant and
biased comments about this
organization.
21. I have criticized this organization.
95
22. I feel motivated to criticize the leaders of
this organization.
23. I usually avoid
networking with
coworkers.
Have you ever communicated about your organization using email or social media such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or blogs? Yes
No
Based on your use of e-mail and social media, please rate the following channels by the frequency you have used them to communicate about the [Name] County School District during the last three months. Please select a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means you Never used the channel to communicate about your employer during the last three months and 7 means you used the channel at least Once a Day to communicate about your employer.
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 Once a Day at Least 7
I do not use this channel.
Blogs
96
Turning from frequency to content, please rate the same channels by the overall sentiment of your communications about the [Name] County School District during the last three months. Please select a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means your communications about your employer on that channel during the last three months generally were Very Unfavorable and 7 means your communications about your employer on that channel generally were Very Favorable.
Very Unfavorable
1
2 3 4 5 6 Very Favorable
7
I do not use this channel
Blogs
Have you ever communicated anonymously about your organization using Internet channels? Yes
No
Based on your anonymous communication, please rate the following channels by the frequency you have used them to communicate about the [Name] County School District during the last three months. Please select a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means you Never used the channel to communicate anonymously about your employer during the last three months and 7 means you used the channel at least Once a Day to communicate anonymously about your employer.
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 Once a Day at Least 7
I do not use this channel
Glassdoor
TaleoUp
Indeed
Other (Please Specify)
97
Turning from frequency to content, please rate the same channels by the overall sentiment of your anonymous communications about the [Name] County School District during the last three months. Please select a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means your anonymous communications about your employer on that channel during the last three months generally were Very Unfavorable and 7 means your anonymous communications about your employer on that channel generally were Very Favorable.
Very Unfavorable
1
2 3 4 5 6 Very Favorable
7
I do not use this channel
Glassdoor
TaleoUp
Indeed
Other (Please Specify)
In the final section several demographic questions are asked for statistical analysis only. What is your age in years? (For example, 34)
Years Old... __________ What is your ethnicity? White or Caucasian
Hispanic or Latino
Black or African American
Native American or American Indian
Asian or Pacific Islander
Other (Please Specify) ____________________
What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Please use the pull-down menu below.) 4-year College Degree (BA/BS)
Some Graduate School
Master’s Degree
Some Doctoral Studies
Doctoral Degree (PhD/EdD)
Professional Degree (MD, JD)
98
Please feel free to add any additional comments you may have about the [Name] County School District and employer/employee communications.
Comments:
That completes the questionnaire! Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to participate
in this survey. Your research contribution is greatly appreciated.
Ms. Callie Polk
Graduate Student
College of Journalism and Communications
University of Florida
99
APPENDIX B UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL FORM
100
APPENDIX C UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT
APPROVAL
101
102
APPENDIX D EMAIL INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN SURVEY
January 22, 2013
DEAR <<First Name>> <<Last Name>>,
I am writing to request your help with my graduate research at the University of Florida. This research can benefit
the Lake County School District and you. As part of a select group of Lake County School District teachers and
administrators, you are invited to fill out a 10-minute online survey about the relationship and communication
between employers and employees. Your participation in this survey is strictly voluntary.
This study has been reviewed and approved by the district through the office of Kathleen Farner Thomas, Ph.D.,
director of Evaluation and Accountability. She is copied on this email as verification of approval.
To participate, visit this link: https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cvDYNLMObQZha5v, read the online
survey agreement and then follow the online survey instructions to participate. Please try to complete this survey in
the next week, by Monday, January 28.
I know that your schedule is full and certainly appreciate you taking valuable time to voice your opinions. Your
answers will be collected anonymously and no identifying information will be associated with your responses.
Thank you in advance for your participation in this important project. If you have any questions about the
administration of the survey, please contact Callie Polk, University of Florida graduate student at (352) 409-7564 or
Sincerely,
Callie L. Polk
Graduate Candidate in Mass Communication
College of Journalism and Communications
University of Florida
Survey link: https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cvDYNLMObQZha5v
cc: Kathleen Farner Thomas, Ph.D., director of Evaluation and Accountability
Lake County Schools
200 W. Golf Links Avenue
Eustis, FL 32726
103
APPENDIX E FIRST EMAIL SURVEY PARTICIPATION REMINDER
January 25, 2013
DEAR <<First Name>> <<Last Name>>,
You were recently invited to participate in an online survey in which your opinion truly matters! In 10 minutes or
less you can complete the survey about the relationship and communications between you and your employer, the
Lake County School District. Your participation is very important and will benefit you and the District, which has
approved the survey.
If you have not yet participated, please visit this link:
https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cvDYNLMObQZha5v, read the online survey agreement and then follow
the survey instructions. Your input is needed by next FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1.
Your answers will be collected anonymously and no identifying information will be associated with your responses.
This study has been reviewed and approved by the district office of Kathleen Farner Thomas, Ph.D., director of
Evaluation and Accountability, who is copied on this email for verification. Your participation is strictly voluntary.
Thank you in advance for your participation in this important project that will help me complete my graduate
research. If you have any questions about the administration of the survey, please contact Callie Polk, University of
Florida graduate student, at (352) 409-7564 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Callie L. Polk
Graduate Candidate in Mass Communication
College of Journalism and Communications
University of Florida
Survey link: https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cvDYNLMObQZha5v
cc: Kathleen Farner Thomas, Ph.D., director of Evaluation and Accountability
Lake County Schools
200 W. Golf Links Avenue
Eustis, FL 32726
104
APPENDIX F SECOND EMAIL SURVEY PARTICIPATION REMINDER
February 1, 2013
Dear [First name] [Last name]:
I am very excited to be collecting data for my graduate thesis that will be able to help you and the Lake County
School District. By answering just a short survey (less than 10 minutes!) you can provide insightful information
about the relationship and communications between you and your employer, the Lake County School District.
Many employees have already completed the survey, thank you! However, a large majority has yet to fill it out. I
appreciate your continued support by completing the survey and encouraging fellow employees who were invited to
do the same.
If you have not yet participated, please visit this link:
https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cvDYNLMObQZha5v, read the online survey agreement and then follow
the survey instructions. Your input is needed by MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11.
Your answers will be collected anonymously and no identifying information will be associated with your responses.
This study has been reviewed and approved by the district office of Kathleen Farner Thomas, Ph.D., director of
Evaluation and Accountability, who is copied on this email for verification. Your participation is strictly voluntary.
Thank you in advance for your participation in this important project that will help me complete my graduate
research. If you have any questions about the administration of the survey, please contact Callie Polk, University of
Florida graduate student, at (352) 409-7564 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Callie L. Polk
College of Journalism and Communications
University of Florida
Survey link: https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cvDYNLMObQZha5v
cc: Kathleen Farner Thomas, Ph.D., director of Evaluation and Accountability
Lake County Schools
200 W. Golf Links Avenue
Eustis, FL 32726
105
APPENDIX G THANK-YOU EMAIL AND FINAL SURVEY REMINDER
February 8, 2013
DEAR << Test First Name >> << Test Last Name >>,
Thank you so much to you and your colleagues for providing insightful data that will benefit the Lake County
School District and yourself. Feedback I receive will also help me complete my graduate thesis at the University of
Florida. Without your help and support I would not be able to graduate!
This is your last chance to complete the survey if you have not done so already. By taking less than 10 minutes to
complete a brief survey, you can provide insightful information about the relationship and communications between
you and your employer, the Lake County School District.
If you have not yet participated, please visit this link:
https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cvDYNLMObQZha5v, read the online survey agreement and then follow
the survey instructions. Your input is needed by MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11.
Your answers will be collected anonymously and no identifying information will be associated with your responses.
This study has been reviewed and approved by the district office of Kathleen Farner Thomas, Ph.D., director of
Evaluation and Accountability. Your participation is strictly voluntary.
Thank you again for those who have already participated or will participate now! If you have any questions about
the administration of the survey, please contact Callie Polk, University of Florida graduate student, at (352) 409-
7564 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Callie L. Polk
College of Journalism and Communications
University of Florida
Survey link: https://ufljour.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cvDYNLMObQZha5v
cc: Kathleen Farner Thomas, Ph.D., director of Evaluation and Accountability
Lake County Schools
200 W. Golf Links Avenue
Eustis, FL 32726
106
LIST OF REFERENCES
Anonymous State Department of Education. (2012a). Title of publication and other information removed to comply with the Southeastern Suburban School District’s request for confidentiality.
Anonymous State Department of Education. (2012b). Title of publication and other information removed to comply with the Southeastern Suburban School District’s request for confidentiality.
Arthur W. Page Society. (2007). The authentic enterprise: An Arthur W. Page Society report. New York, NY: Author.
Arthur W. Page Society. (2012). Building belief: A new model for activating corporate character and authentic advocacy. Retrieved September 19, 2012, from http://www.awpagesociety.com/insights/building-belief/
Babbie, E. R. (2010). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Retrieved February 12, 2013.
Berger, A. A. (2011). Media and communication research methods: An introduction to qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices (2nd ed.). Tampa, FL: USF Open Access Textbooks. Retrieved February 12, 2013, from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3
Blum, P. K., & Tremarco, V. Q. (2008). High potential public relations professionals thrive on challenge: A study of employee turnover and retention in the public relations industry. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved September 21, 2012, from http://iccopr.com/fckeditor/editor/filemanager/connectors/aspx/fckeditor/userfiles/file/highpotentialsthriveonchallenge.pdf
Bowen, S. A. (2005a). Excellence theory. In R. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 307–309). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412952545.n149
Bowen, S. A. (2005b). Symmetry. In R. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 838–840). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412952545.n149
Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1984). Communication research methods. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co.
Brito, M. (2012a, August 21). Let’s evolve the conversation about employee advocacy [Blog post]. Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://www.edelmandigital.com/2012/08/21/evolve-employee-advocacy/
107
Brito, M. (2012b, June 12). Social business enables employee advocacy [Blog post]. Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://www.edelmandigital.com/2012/06/12/social-business-employee-advocacy/
Broom, G. (2012). Cutlip and Center’s effective public relations. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Burson-Marsteller. (2008, November 14). Eighth annual Burson-Marsteller/PRWeek CEO survey. [Blog post]. Retrieved November 28, 2012, from http://www.burson-marsteller.com/Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/BM_Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=79
Burton, S. K. (2006a, March 1). Should I stay or should I go? Chief Executive Officer. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/features/feature183
Burton, S. K. (2006b, Spring). Without trust, you have nobody: Effective employee communications for today and tomorrow. The Public Relations Strategist, 12(2), 32–36.
Burton, S. K. (2011a). The key stakeholders: Your employees. In C. L. Caywood (Ed.), The handbook of strategic public relations and integrated marketing communications (2nd ed., pp. 131–143). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Burton, S. K. (2011b, Winter). Listen up: Why employees are your key. The Public Relations Strategist. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/display_article.php?id=949319
Camilleri, C. S. (2008). True blue: Authenticity and Yalumba’s journey of discovery. Australian Journal of Communication, 35(3), 41–67.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Carr, D. F. (2012). PepsiCo makes employees social ambassadors [Blog post]. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.informationweek.com/thebrainyard/news/social_networking_consumer/232500250/pepsico-makes-employees-social-ambassadors
Church, G. (2012, August 17). People-powered brands: Empowering a tribe of internal advocates [Blog post]. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://comprehension.prsa.org/?p=4979
Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
108
Conlin, M., & Park, A. (2004, June 27). Blogging with the boss’s blessing [Blog post]. Retrieved October 12, 2012, from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2004-06-27/blogging-with-the-bosss-blessing
Cramer, B. (2009). Using social media to advance your goals. Nonprofit World, 27(1), 20–21.
Czarniawska, B. (2000). Identity lost or identity found? Celebration and lamentation over the postmodern view of identity in social science and fiction. In M. Schulz, M. Hatch, & M. Larsen (Eds.), The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand (pp. 270–284). Retrieved October 23, 2012, from http://books.google.com/books?id=iPIoFtMbR9wC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=whetenalbert&source=bl&ots=kmgT9Rauc&sig=kxsz8MdQIvLp5GCdoUYLRYnzMpY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bCiGUPGuKIG9qQGR9IFg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg
Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth. Management Science, 49(10), 1407–1424.
Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager's guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from http://books.google.com/books?id=GtyygZH8LB4C&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=twowaysymmetricalcommunication&source=bl&ots=SN4R6k61NX&sig=OjA0mauwH6Qap5J3g12We2d7zaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tEZ6ULDEGYqdrAHsooDQAw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA
Edelman. (2012). Trust barometer executive summary. Retrieved October 21, 2012, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/79026497/2012-Edelman-Trust-Barometer-Executive-Summary
Edwards, L. (2010). Authenticity in organizational context: Fragmentation, contradiction and loss of control. Journal of Communication Management, 14(3), 192–205.
Ewing, M. E. (2007). Changing with the times: Leveraging the Web to enhance your employee communications program. Public Relations Tactics, 14(3), 12–13.
Eysenbach, G. (2008). Medicine 2.0: Social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10(3). Retrieved October 19, 2012, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626430/
Gallicano, T. D., Curtin, P., & Matthews, K. (2012). I love what I do, but… A relationship management survey of millennial generation public relations agency employees. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(3), 222–242.
Global perspectives: How is your company or client using social media for employee communication? (2008). Communication World, 25(5), 17.
109
Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalization. Retrieved October 22, 2012, from http://www.prismjournal.org/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/globalPR/GRUNIG.pdf
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1996, May). Implications of symmetry for a theory of ethics and social responsibility in public relations. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2002). Implications of the IABC excellence study for PR education. Journal of Communication Management, 7(1), 34–42.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. Ledingham & S. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (2006). Relationship management: A general theory of public relations. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 21–62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Verčič, D. (1998). Are the IABC's excellence principles generic? Comparing Slovenia and the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. Journal of Communication Management, 2(4), 335–356.
Hallahan, K. (2005). Communication technologies. In R. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 165–169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412952545.n82
Hearn, G., Foth, M., & Gray, H. (2009). Applications and implementations of new media in corporate communications: An action research approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(1), 49–61. doi:10.1108/13563280910931072
Holtz, S. (1999). Public relations on the Net: Winning strategies to inform and influence the media, the investment community, the government, the public, and more! New York, NY: AMACOM.
110
Jaffe, J. (2010) Flip the funnel: How to use existing customers to gain new ones. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118257852.fmatter
Jo, S., & Shim, S. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(2), 277–280.
Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 395–414. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00019.x
Kent, M. L. (2008). Critical analysis of blogging in public relations. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 32–40.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37.
Ketchum. (2009). Media myths and realities. Perspectives. Retrieved October 22, 2012, from http://www.ketchumperspectives.com/archives/2009_i1/index.php
Key, R. J. (2005, November). How the PR profession can flourish in this new digital age: Why you must challenge old PR models. Public Relations Tactics, 12(11), 18–19.
Kim, H.-S. (2007). A multilevel study of antecedents and a mediator of employee organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 167–197.
Kim, J. N., & Rhee, Y. (2011). Strategic thinking about employee communication behavior (ECB) in public relations: Testing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(3), 243–268.
Kroll, K. (2011). Monitoring employees' use of social media. Compliance Week, 8(91), 52–53.
Laskin, A. V. (2009). The evolution of models of public relations: An outsider's perspective. Journal of Communication Management, 13(1), 37–54. doi:10.1108/13632540910931382
Lindgren, S. (2011). LinkedIn. In G. Barnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social networks (pp. 500–502). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412994170.n197
LinkedIn Press Center. (n.d.). About LinkedIn. Retrieved October 16, 2012, from http://press.linkedin.com/about
Marino, K. (2011, April 14). Teachers proceed with caution on Facebook [Web log message]. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http://www.schools.com/news/teachers-on-facebook.html
111
McCown, N. (2007). The role of public relations with internal activists. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(1), 47–68. doi:10.1080/10627260709336595
Mirabella, A. (2012, August 13). [Web log message]. Retrieved on November 15, 2012, from http://comprehension.prsa.org/?p=4964
Molleda, J. C. (2009). Construct and dimensions of authenticity in strategic communication research. Anagramas, 8(15), 85–97.
Molleda, J. C. (2010a). Authenticity and its dimensions in strategic communication research. In S. Allan (Ed.), Rethinking communication: Keywords in communication research (pp. 53–64). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Molleda, J. C. (2010b). Authenticity and construct’s dimensions in public relations and communications research. Journal of Communication Management, 14(3), 223–236.
Molleda, J. C., & Jain, R. (2013). Testing a perceived authenticity index with triangulation research: The case of Xcaret in Mexico. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7, 1–20.
Molleda, J. C., & Roberts, M. (2010). Colombia’s Juan Valdez campaign: Brand revitalization through “authenticity” and “glocal” strategic communications. In G. J. Golan, T. J. Johnson, & W. Wanta (Eds.), International media communication in a global age (pp. 380–-400). New York, NY: Routledge.
Nagy, M. (2005). Two-way and one-way communication. In R. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 307–309). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412952545.n149
One hundred million voices [Blog post]. (2011, September 8). Retrieved October 22, 2012, from http://blog.twitter.com/2011/09/one-hundred-million-voices.html
Porter, L. V., Sweetser Trammell, K. D., Chung, D., & Kim, E. (2007). Blog power: Examining the effects of practitioner blog use on power in public relations. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 92–95.
Quandt, T. (2012). What’s left of trust in a network society? An evolutionary model and critical discussion of trust and societal communication. European Journal of Communication, 27(1), 7–21. doi:10.1177/0267323111434452
Rhee, Y., & Kim, J.-N. (2009, May). Employees as boundary spanners: Predicting employees’ external communication behavior through employee-organization relationships. Paper presented at the Public Relations Division, International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
112
Rodriguez, E. (2011, August 17). Teacher suspended, reassigned for anti-gay Facebook comments. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-08-17/features/os-teacher-gays-facebook-comments-20110817_1_gay-students-facebook-post-personal-facebook-page
Shen, H. & Kim, J.-N. (2012). The Authentic Enterprise: Another buzz word, or a true driver of quality relationships? Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(4), 371–389.
Smith, B. G. (2010). Socially distributing public relations: Twitter, Haiti, and interactivity in social media. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 329–335. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.005
Solomon, N. (2011, December 7). Friendly advice for teachers: Beware of Facebook [Blog post]. Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143264921/friendly-advice-for-teachers-beware-of-facebook
Sweetser, K. D., & Kelleher, T. (2011). A survey of social media use, motivation and leadership among public relations practitioners. Public Relations Review, 37(4), 425–428. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.010
Using social media requires targeted plan, employee support. (2012). HR Focus, 89(6), 8–10. Retrieved October 25, 2012, from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020617776?accountid=10920
Walton, S. (2010). Trendspotting: What you can expect in the coming year. Public Relations Tactics, 17(1), 10–15.
Walz, A. M., & Celuch, K. G. (2010). The effect of retailer communication on customer advocacy: The moderating role of trust. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 23, 95–110.
Waters, R. D., Canfield, R. R., Foster, J. M., & Hardy, E. E. (2011). Applying the dialogic theory to social networking sites. Journal of Social Marketing, 1(3), 211–227. doi:10.1108/20426761111170713
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2011). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wright, D. K. (1998). Corporate communications policy concerning the Internet: A survey of the nation’s senior-level, corporate public relations officers. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations.
Wright, D. K. (2001). The magic communication machine: Examining the Internet’s impact on public relations, journalism, and the public. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations.
113
Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. (2006, March). Weblogs and employee communication: Ethical questions for corporate public relations. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, Florida.
Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. D. (2009). Examining how public relations practitioners actually are using social media. Public Relations Journal, 2(3). Retrieved October 25, 2012, from http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Summer_09/
Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. D. (2012). Examining how social and emerging media have been used in public relations between 2006 and 2012: A longitudinal analysis. Public Relations Journal, 6(4). Retrieved October 25, 2012, from http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/
Yang, S. U., & Lim, J. S. (2009). The effects of blog-mediated public relations (BMPR) on relational trust. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(3), 341–359.
Yohn, D. L. (2010). Mastering the game when employees use social media. Club Industry's Fitness Business Pro. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://deniseleeyohn.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/dlyohn_club_industry_mastering_the_game_when_employees_use_social_media.pdf
Zhang, Y., & Yu, T. (2012). Mining trust relationships from online social networks. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 27(3), 492. doi:10.1007/s11390-012-1238-8
Zijtveld, K. V., & Klinckhamers, H. (2011). Use of social media by employees in the Netherlands. The In-House Lawyer. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/the-netherlands/8346-use-of-social-media-by-employees-in-the-netherlands
Zuckerberg, M. (2012, October 4). One billion people on Facebook. [Web log message]. Retrieved October 16, 2012, from http://newsroom.fb.com/News/One-Billion-People-on-Facebook-1c9.aspx
114
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Callie Polk was born and raised in Leesburg, Florida. She earned a Bachelor of
Science Degree in journalism from the University of Florida (UF) in 2011. Upon
graduating, she decided to continue her education in UF’s College of Journalism and
Communications and pursue a Master of Arts in Mass Communication specializing in
public relations. She received her M.A.M.C. from the University of Florida in the spring
of 2013. Callie plans to pursue a professional career in public relations at a university or
corporation.
