Participatory communication on
internal social media – a dream
or reality?
Findings from two exploratory studies of
coworkers as communicators
Vibeke Thøis Madsen
Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore whether internal social media (ISM) introduces a new kind of
participatory communication within organizations that is capable of influencing and moving the organization.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on two exploratory studies: a multiple case study in
ten Danish organizations, and a single case study in a Danish bank.
Findings – The paper finds that different types of communication on ISM develop in different types of
organizations. Participatory communication capable of changing the organization only develops when
coworkers perceive that they have a license to critique. The paper, therefore, proposes to distinguish between
three different types of communication arenas created by ISM: a quiet arena, a knowledge-sharing arena and
a participatory communication arena.
Research limitations/implications – The research is exploratory and based on two Danish case studies
and the perceptions of coworkers and social media coordinators. A deeper, summative analysis of ISM across
more and various organizations in multiple countries has to confirm the findings.
Originality/value – The paper conceptualizes ISM as an interactive and dynamic communication arena, and
proposes that the participatory communication on ISM is a co-constructed process among coworkers, middle
managers and top managers.
Keywords Participatory communication, Internal communication, Employee communication,
Internal social media, Enterprise social media, Social intranet
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Internal social media (ISM) provides members in organizations with an opportunity to share
knowledge, voice an opinion and connect with fellow coworkers. This opportunity can
potentially alter socialization, information sharing and power processes within the organization
(Miller, 2016; Treem and Leonardi, 2012) and has, therefore, been commended for its ability to
flatten hierarchies and democratize organizations (Heide, 2015; Men and Bowen, 2016). This
empowerment of coworkers is viewed as a key to employee engagement (Koch et al., 2012;
Mazzei, 2014; Parry and Solidoro, 2013; Ruck, 2015; Welch, 2012) which has been found to
benefit an organization in several ways. The organization can enhance workplace productivity
(Leftheriotis and Giannakos, 2014), provide better customer service (Men and Bowen, 2016;
Ruck, 2015), cause coworkers to display organizational citizen behavior (Madsen and
Verhoeven, 2016) and create a sense of community in the organization (Uysal, 2016).
However, organizations are slow to embrace social media in their internal communication
(Madsen, 2016; Men and Hung-Baesecke, 2015; Sievert and Lipp, 2016), and the question is
whether the communication on ISM turns into participatory communication, or whether ISM
Corporate Communications: An International Journal just becomes an additional channel in internal communication. Since the middle of the last
Vol. 23 No. 4, 2018
pp. 614-628
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1356-3289
DOI 10.1108/CCIJ-04-2018-0039
Received 11 October 2017
Revised 1 April 2018
22 May 2018
Accepted 3 June 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm
The author wishes to thank Professor Christa Thomsen of Aarhus University for thoughtful and
constructive feedback on an early draft of the paper.
614
CCIJ
23,4
century, symmetrical communication and the involvement of employees have been hailed as
ideals in the academic literature on employee communication (Grunig and Hunt, 1984;
Heron, 1942; Redding, 1972), but practice seems to have lagged behind (Ruck, 2015).
Therefore, even if ISM makes democratic and participatory communication possible, this
does not necessarily cause organizations to use it for that purpose. Intranets first entered
organizations in the mid-1990s, and the systems included interactive features enabling the
involvement of coworkers (Heide, 2015). However, only few organizations seem to have used
the opportunity to develop interactive communication among coworkers, and if so, they
have mainly done so by using wikis for knowledge sharing in IT-departments while the
intranet has mainly been used to communicate information to employees (Heide, 2015).
Developing the communication arena on the intranet seems to have become a more
realistic option with the introduction of features from social media and the development of
the social intranet. These systems are easier to use, and employees bring their habits and
experience from social media into the organizations (Men and Bowen, 2016; Ruck, 2015).
Thus, based on a study including 407 randomly selected Chinese employees, Men and
Hung-Baesecke (2015) argue that employees have come to expect transparency and
authenticity of their workplace. However, a survey of 500 organizations in Germany found
that organizational culture, and especially the lack of trust, stopped organizations from fully
integrating ISM in internal communication (Sievert and Lipp, 2016). In this context, a
pressing question is therefore what the implications are of these new kinds of
communication practices on ISM? Do they introduce a new kind of participatory
communication within organizations? And is this kind of communication capable of
radically changing the organization and its way of working, as suggested by practitioners
and several researchers (e.g. Heide, 2015; Treem and Leonardi, 2012)?
So far, little is known about how communication on ISM actually develops when ISM is
introduced into organizations, and several calls have been made to increase research in ISM
and how the visibility and transparency of communication influence the organization
(e.g. Heide, 2015; Men and Bowen, 2016; Ruck, 2015). This paper is an answer to this call.
It proposes to conceptualize ISM as an interactive and dynamic communication arena, and
to discuss whether communication on ISM can be perceived as participatory
communication. The paper draws on two exploratory studies: a multiple case study
conducted in ten Danish organizations, and a single case study in a Danish bank. Based on
the findings, the paper proposes a theoretical model for understanding the different types of
communication that can develop on ISM. The paper further outlines the implications of this
model for organizations that wish to develop participatory communication by using ISM.
In doing so, it will provide new insights into how coworker communication on ISM
influences the organization.
The article has five main sections. Section 2 reviews literature on challenges which might
be encountered when introducing ISM, employee communication, employee participation and
organizational citizen behavior before moving on to create a theoretical framework for the
understanding of communication on ISM. Section 3 describes the research design. Section 4
presents the findings of the two studies on the type of communication that appeared in the
ISM communication arena. Section 5 discusses the findings and proposes that a distinction be
made between three different types of communication arenas on ISM. Finally, Section 6
discusses the implications for the theory and practice of these three kinds of arenas.
2. Literature review and theoretical framework
Challenges with introducing ISM
Organizations often experience difficulties when introducing ISM (Madsen, 2017). These
may stem from coworker interpretation of the technology (Cooren et al., 2012; Fulk, 1993;
Madsen, 2017), the dynamics of employee voice and silence (Morrison, 2014) or the
615
Participatory
communication
on ISM
organizations’ perceived risks of introducing ISM (Sievert and Lipp, 2016). Another reason
might be that organizations can have two different objectives for introducing ISM. They
may understand employee participation as either employee engagement or employee
empowerment ( Johansson, 2015). Johansson (2015) claims that manager-driven participation
aims to build employee engagement, while communicative leadership aims to empower
employees, thereby changing the power situation within the organization. These two
different approaches reflect two different perceptions of employee voice, e.g., venting as
opposed to constructive communication for the benefit of the organization. In the first case,
employees are given the opportunity to voice their opinion because this allows them to let
off steam, thereby hopefully becoming more engaged. In the second case, employee voice is
seen as constructive communication, the objective being to provide a communication arena
in which coworkers can contribute with their ideas and opinions.
Employee communication, internal communication and employee has received
increasing attention both among practitioners and academics as a way of making
employees more engaged and committed to the organization (Men and Bowen, 2016; Ruck,
2015). In this connection, employee participation has been seen as a special case of internal
communication (Redding, 1972; Stohl and Cheney, 2001) aimed at improving decisions and
the acceptance of decisions (Redding, 1972). The field has been studied from an industrial
relations perspective, a HRM perspective and an organizational communication
perspective. Industrial relations studies have looked at the giving of rights to employees
(Wilkinson et al., 2013), while HRM studies have explored the involvement of employees in
order to make them more engaged and thereby make the organization more effective (Parry
and Solidoro, 2013). Organizational communication studies have explored participation as a
way of improving decision making, because employees are often very knowledgeable
about their work, and organizations can become more effective by drawing on this
knowledge (Redding, 1972).
Studies on employee participation have explored different aspects of this, and this paper
will draw on studies of different levels of participation, the objectives of participation and
paradoxes in participation.
Wilkinson et al. (2013) look at different levels of participation and present an escalator
of participation including five different levels of participation: information,
communication, consultation, co-determination and control in decision making.
A similar distinction between different kinds of employee participation is described in
research on change communication in organizations, in which Lewis (2011, p. 69) presents
a continuum from symbolic participation to resource participation. This continuum
indicates that employee participation is not always a deeply felt wish in organizations: it
may only be a symbolic action in a change process. However, it is a unifying conception of
most of the different approaches to employee participation that this is a manager-driven
process. Several studies have questioned whether the wish actually is to involve
employees – a line of thought that is also found in Stohl and Cheney’s (2001) literature
review of paradoxes in participation. Their paper sketches four main categories of
paradoxes: structure, agency, identity and power. These categories of paradoxes point out
contradictions and tensions in the organization that renders any attempts to introduce
participation fruitless or merely symbolic because they are restricted by conditions
inherent in the organization. The literature on participation thus highlights that
introducing a participatory communication arena in an organizational context is likely to
be accompanied by many tensions and paradoxes.
Employees’ willingness to contribute to the organization has especially been studied
from an employee perspective in knowledge management literature (Vuori and Okkonen,
2012), which finds that an alignment of personal and organizational goals need to be present
before employees are likely to share their knowledge. Furthermore, coworkers’ willingness
616
CCIJ
23,4
to contribute has been perceived as an act of organizational citizen behavior. According to
Ridder (2004), internal communication can foster support for the organization in two ways.
The communication can create a sense of commitment with the organization, or it can
establish trust in management. The quality in task-related communication is important in
creating commitment, while the quality of non-task-related communication is vital in
creating trust (Ridder, 2004). In this respect, an organization can develop supportive
behavior among coworkers when managers explain goals, openly discuss problems in the
organization and provide coworkers with opportunities to influence the organization.
The literature on internal communication, employee participation and organizational
citizen behavior, thus seems to imply that a communication arena on ISM with transparent
and open communication among coworkers and managers could be beneficial to
organizations and create trust in management, but that the intention can easily become
trapped in the paradoxes of participation. However, so far, little research has been
conducted within the communication on ISM, and therefore this paper sets out to explore the
following research question:
RQ1. How does coworker communication develop when ISM has been introduced into an
organization, and to what extent does the media create a new kind of participatory
organizational communication?
A participatory communication perspective on ISM
This section will develop a communication constitutes organization (CCO) understanding of
the dynamics of communication on ISM, based on three sets of theories. The three theories
are employee voice and silence (Morrison, 2014); imagined audiences on social media
(Marwick and boyd, 2011); and the rhetorical arena model taken from crisis communication
(Frandsen and Johansen, 2010; 2016).
Theories about employee voice and silence shed light on the different factors that
influence whether coworkers voice their opinion or remain silent in an organizational setting
(Morrison, 2014). In the first place, to voice their opinion coworkers need an opportunity, and
ISM provides them with an opportunity to communicate. The perceived efficacy and safety
of voice will also influence whether they will in fact voice their opinion or not. This means
that coworkers must perceive that they can contribute to the organization in a positive way
by voicing their opinion. If they have already tried to voice their opinion before, and nobody
listened, they are unlikely to voice their opinion again. The same applies to safety of voice.
Coworkers will only voice their opinion if they feel it is safe to do so and that their jobs or
reputation within the organization will not be at risk. Moreover, the topic on which a
coworker voices an opinion is important. There is a difference between suggesting that the
organization should use a different brand of coffee and questioning its values. The target of
voice is also important. There is a difference between voicing an opinion to a manager and a
fellow coworker, and whether the coworker has a good relationship with their manager
(or not) is also relevant. Finally, the likely outcome for both organization and coworker when
voicing an opinion or remaining silent also plays a role (Morrison, 2014).
Theories of imagined audiences on social media are relevant to include as the target of
voice significantly influences whether or not a coworker will voice an opinion (Morrison,
2014), and when communicating on ISM, it is difficult for coworkers to know who is actually
listening, especially if the organization is large. Coworkers will speak up and out to the
organization (Liu et al., 2010), and they will perceive the audience as both known and
unknown; known because the organization sets the boundaries, unknown because
coworkers do not know everyone in the organization and do not know who will be listening.
The theory of imagined audiences suggests that on social media, different audiences
collapse into one (Marwick and boyd, 2011), causing people to take cues from the social
617
Participatory
communication
on ISM
media environment to imagine who they are speaking to, and how this audience will
respond to what they are saying. In other words, the imagined audiences are socially
constructed by the choices made by coworkers about how and what to write.
People communicating on social media experience a constant tension between revealing
and concealing because they do not wish to reveal too much but are, at the same time,
anxious to present an authentic image of themselves. According to Marwick and boyd
(2011), people use two techniques to do this: self-censorship, and striking a balance
between personal and professional content. In an organizational context, coworkers are
likely to take cues both from ISM and from the organization about how and what to
communicate. At the same time, they are likely to try to balance organizational and personal
needs. Coworkers will try both to help the organization and at the same time to present
a desirable self-image.
The rhetorical arena theory was developed in the field of crisis communication (Frandsen
and Johansen, 2010, 2016). It may also cast light on the dynamics in the communication
arena created by social media. Communication on ISM is to some extent unpredictable,
perhaps even sometimes uncontrollable (Fägersten, 2015), which also applies to crisis
communication (Frandsen and Johansen, 2016). The strength of the rhetorical arena theory
is its multivocal approach (Coombs and Holladay, 2014), which suggests that when a crisis
occurs, many voices act and communicate to, with, against, past and about each other
(Frandsen and Johansen, 2010, 2016). The theory helps to provide insights into how the
organization can emerge from or be constituted in a multiplicity of voices. However, a
difference exists between communication in a crisis situation and communication on ISM:
the rhetorical arena emerges around a specific crisis, while communication on ISM is a
string of ongoing conversations on different topics and issues.
Placing all of these three theories in the context of a CCO understanding of
communication can help shed light on what happens in communication on ISM between
members of the organization. Cooren (2004, 2012) distinguishes between text and
conversation in communication. Text is the substance – the dominant reading or
understanding – of concepts, values, or ways of doing things. It can be in writing, or it can
be a shared perception. Conversations, on the other hand, are the lively, evolving,
co-constructive sides of communication in which the text is questioned and negotiated
before a new understanding of it is evolved. Communication on ISM is likely to include
conversations that can negotiate texts about the organization, causing communication on
ISM to be capable of constructing the organization (Fägersten, 2015; Madsen, 2016).
The three theories and the CCO perspective can help us to understand the dynamics at
work in the ISM communication arena. Based on these theories, ISM can be conceptualized
as follows (see Figure 1): ISM is an interactive and dynamic communication arena in which
multiple voices act and communicate to, with, against, past and about each other.
The communication arena is perceived as being watched by imagined audiences.
This influences the perceived risks of communicating and the strategies adopted by
coworkers when communicating. Coworkers can then discuss and negotiate the
organization’s identity, and communication in the arena helps them make sense both of
their work and of the organization.
3. Research design
Two exploratory case studies (Yin, 2014) were conducted to explore coworker
communication on ISM. The first was a multiple case study based on interviews with
ISM coordinators in ten Danish organizations. The coordinators were asked about their
perceptions of coworker communication on ISM, of the sort of topics coworkers would
discuss on ISM and of whether coworkers dared to express criticism of the organization.
The second study was a single case study conducted in a Danish bank. The focus of the case
618
CCIJ
23,4
study was the topics discussed and the dynamics of communication on ISM, as well as
coworkers’ perceptions of communication. The aim was to gain an insight into actual
communication on ISM.
The multiple case study
Ten organizations were selected using a snowballing sample strategy (Neergaard, 2007).
The main criterion was that the organizations had introduced ISM for the purpose of
generating internal communication. The organizations selected represented various sizes
and industries in both private and public sectors, in order that not only variations but also
shared patterns could be documented: similarities are particularly interesting if they arise
across great variation (Neergaard, 2007). The second criterion was that some
communication was taking place on their ISM at the time of the interview. The
organizations in the sample used a variety of platforms. As the purpose of the study was to
look at ISM coordinators’ perceptions of coworker communication on ISM, it was not
important for organizations to be using the same types of platforms to be included in the
sample. Treem and Leonardi (2012) use the same approach, looking at the communication
afforded by social media rather than the technology itself. ISM coordinators were
interviewed because they were assumed to be key informants (Neergaard, 2007), owing to
their central role in relation to ISM. The term “ISM coordinator” was used to cover a range of
people and job functions responsible for ISM.
In the spring of 2014, the ISM coordinators were interviewed about their perceptions of
coworker communication on ISM using semi-structured interviews lasting 1 to 2 h. The
interviews were conducted as part of another research project, and the interview guide
included questions about the topics discussed by coworkers, whether they were airing
opinions, proposals or constructive comments and whether their voice was trivial, private,
knowledge sharing or critical of the organization, expressing license to critique ( Jagd, 2010).
The final section in the interview guide included six critical incident questions (Downs and
Adrian, 2004). The first two of these addressed the ISM coordinators’ perceptions of
successful and unsuccessful communication on ISM; the third and fourth asked the ISM
coordinators to describe the pros and cons to the organizations of having ISM; and the last
two questions addressed whether they perceived ISM as having a positive or negative
effect on the relationship between coworkers and between coworkers and managers.
Imagined audiences
Risks
Self-censorship
Figure 1.
A communication
perspective on ISM
619
Participatory
communication
on ISM
During the interviews, the coordinators presented the researcher with examples of
communication on ISM in their organizations in order to create an understanding of how
coworkers communicated in their organizations.
The single case study
The Danish bank Jyske Bank has 4,000 employees in 110 locations. Jyske bank was chosen
because it was seen as a critical case (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2014). Coworkers had, since 2003,
access to a discussion forum “The Word is Free,” and they had been discussing both trivial
and strategic topics as well as sharing knowledge.
The study was conducted in two steps based on a netnographic approach. Coworker
communication on ISM was studied for three months from September to November 2014, and
again for another month in September 2015. In addition, semi-structured interviews
were conducted with 24 coworkers. Of these, 17 were interviewed in December 2014 and
January 2015, and seven in October and November 2015. The coworkers were purposively
selected (Neergaard, 2007) so as to represent a variety of communication behaviors and
different types of coworkers based on job position and geographical location. They were
interviewed about their communication behavior on ISM in terms of posting, commenting and
liking. They were also asked about their motivation for communicating, their perceptions of
the communication on ISM and how the communication affected not only the organization but
also themselves. Finally, two critical incident questions (Downs and Adrian, 2004) were asked
concerning their perceptions of good and bad examples of discussions on ISM.
Data analysis
The interviews with the ISM coordinators and the coworkers from the bank were transcribed.
Subsequently, a thematic analysis was conducted using template analysis (King, 2012) and
NVivo software. The interviews were analyzed in three steps to identify ISM coordinators’ and
coworkers’ perception of communication on ISM. First, the interviews were coded for general
themes. Second, the descriptions of communication and communication behavior on ISM were
coded in more detail to identify different types of communication and participation on ISM.
Third, the codes from the second step were clustered to develop descriptive categories to
understand communication and communication behavior on ISM.
To illustrate the second and the third steps in the coding process, in the coding of the
interviews with the ISM coordinators, ten different descriptions were found under the code
“ISM coordinators’ perception of ways of communicating on ISM”: “professional work-related,”
“leisure,” “monologue,” “dialogue or multi-directional,” “discussions,” “horizontal,” “vertical,”
“like Facebook,” “coffee machine exchanges,” “have something on one’s mind.” These
descriptions were then clustered to produce descriptive categories to understand and define the
communication occurring on ISM: “horizontal,” “bottom-up,” “top-down” and “bottom-up/
horizontal.” Only the last category was found to be perceived as participatory. All screenshots
of three months of communication on ISM in the bank in 2014 were read and coded to
describe the different types of posts and comments. In this textual analysis,
40 discussions were found to be multi-directional and perhaps even participatory as they
evolved around topics which were critical for the organization and received several if not many
comments and likes. These 40 discussions were further analyzed and divided into four
categories representing four different levels of discussion and participation.
4. Findings
Both studies set out to explore how coworker communication developed when ISM was
introduced into an organization, and to what extent the ISM created a new kind of
participatory organizational communication.
620
CCIJ
23,4
Challenges with introducing ISM
Participatory communication was found to be rare in the multiple case study. When asked
about the type of communication taking place in the arena, four coordinators had
experienced very little dialog and saw most of the communication as one-way
communication from the IT, marketing or communication department. In the other six
organizations, coordinators perceived ISM as being used for multi-directional
communication among coworkers. When asked in more detail about this multi-directional
communication, however, the coordinators said most of it was knowledge sharing or
one-way communication. Only in two organizations could coordinators recall one or two
incidents in which a coworker had raised an issue that was critical of the organization.
Participatory communication was found in the single case study in Jyske Bank.
Observations of communication on ISM for three months from September to November 2014
identified 40 significant discussions which could be seen as multi-directional. Studied in
more detail, these discussions were divided into four categories based on the themes
discussed: customers and products, working conditions, organizational issues and
ISM-specific issues. Some discussions would start in one category and end in another as
they were developed. Generally, a discussion started with a concrete problem that developed
into an organizational issue. In total, 22 of the discussions could be perceived as discussions
of organizational identity, thus making this the largest category. These discussions were
further analyzed to understand the content of the discussions as well as how they evolved.
The analysis found that when coworkers discussed the identity of the organization, they
would challenge and negotiate this identity, not to damage but to improve the organization.
The discussions then became conversations negotiating the texts of the organization.
In some cases, new understandings were reached, creating new organizational texts.
Employee communication and participation on ISM
Comparing the two studies, it became clear that ISM communication was taken to a different
level in Jyske Bank than in the ten organizations of the multiple case study. Over a
three-month period in Jyske Bank, 22 discussions on ISM addressed organizational issues
and organizational identity. This was experienced in just two of the ten organizations, and
only rarely. Somehow, coworkers in Jyske Bank perceived that they had a license to critique
( Jagd, 2010), which the coworkers in the ten organizations did not. In other words, based on
the multiple case study, it can be argued that ISM does not facilitate participatory
communication in all organizations. The media has the potential to facilitate this kind of
communication – as found in Jyske Bank – but the multiple case study indicates that
relatively few organizations will actually experience this kind of communication. This
finding is supported by previous research indicating that management style (Baptista and
Galliers, 2012;) and organizational culture (Martin et al., 2015; Vuori and Okkonen, 2012)
influence communication on ISM.
The findings of both studies therefore indicate that coworker communication on ISM can
develop very differently from one organization to another. The media has the potential to
create participatory communication, but only few organizations will develop this kind of
communication.
5. Discussion: three types of communication arenas
Based on these two studies and on the argument put forward in the research literature on
employee participation (Wilkinson et al., 2013; Lewis, 2011) that there are different levels of
participation in organizations, this paper proposes that this also applies to participation on
ISM (see Figure 2). Some organizations just have the technology without really using it.
Several organizations originally considered for inclusion in the multiple case study reported
that they had the technology but did not use it and were therefore excluded from the study
621
Participatory
communication
on ISM
on the grounds that they did not meet the criteria of having some ISM activity. In other
organizations, ISM is used mainly for one-way communication, as found in four out of ten
organizations in the multiple case study and also in studies by other scholars (Baptista and
Galliers, 2012; Denyer et al., 2011; Heide, 2015; Huang et al., 2013). Some organizations have
two-way communication in terms of questions and answers (Morris et al., 2010), whereas
some organizations have multi-directional communication, with coworkers sharing
knowledge about products and customers, which can develop into so-called “knowledge
conversations” (Majchrzak et al., 2013). This seemed to be taking place in six of the ten
organizations in the multiple case studies. Finally, an organization can have multivocal
communication, whereby coworkers discuss both organizational issues and the
organizational identity – in other words, they perceive themselves as having a license to
critique ( Jagd, 2010). This was the case in Jyske Bank, but, according to the ISM
coordinators, not really in any of the ten organizations. Only communication discussing
organizational issues and organizational identity could be called participatory
communication, and it has been found in other organizations than Jyske Bank
(Fägersten, 2015).
Based on the different levels of communication or participation on ISM, illustrated in
Figure 2, this paper argues that ISM can create three types of communication arenas
(see Figure 3), dependent on a complex blend of organizational factors. There is the quiet or
empty arena in which ISM is used primarily for one-way communication from one or more
departments or not at all. This is illustrated by steps one, two and perhaps even step three in
Figure 2. Then, there is the knowledge-sharing arena in which ISM is a multi-directional
arena used primarily to share knowledge about tasks, products and customers. In this arena,
knowledge grows out of knowledge conversations (Majchrzak et al., 2013), as is illustrated
by step four. Finally, there is the participatory communication arena illustrated in step five,
in which ISM constitute a multivocal communication arena for many different voices
interacting and communicating not only about tasks, products and customers, but also
about organization strategy and identity, and in which coworkers perceive that they have a
license to critique ( Jagd, 2010).
The last two arenas make a distinction between multi-directional and multivocal
communication. The author suggests that multi-directional communication is a kind of
transactional communication enabling questions and answers to be voiced within the value
framework of the organization. Multivocal communication, by contrast, is characterized by
voices communicating to, with, against, past and about each other. In this communication,
Multi-vocal
Coworkers commenting
on organizational issues
Multi-directional
Coworkers commenting on
products and work processes
One-way
communication
Providing ISM
Two-way
communication
Sources: Inspired by Wilkinson et al. (2013) and Lewis (2011)
Figure 2.
Different levels of
participation on ISM
622
CCIJ
23,4
coworkers are allowed or even encouraged to have opposing and conflicting views to those
held by the organization. Thus, the purpose of the knowledge-sharing arena becomes to
engage coworkers, whereas the purpose of the participatory arena is to empower coworkers.
This distinction reflects that between engagement and empowerment ( Johansson, 2015).
6. Limitations and implications
The proposal of a possible distinction between three types of ISM arenas is based on the
perceptions of ISM coordinators in ten Danish organizations and a single case study in a
Danish bank. The study, therefore, has some limitations, and a deeper, summative analysis
of ISM across several and various organizations in multiple countries should be conducted
to confirm how widespread these three types of arenas are and to discover whether
participatory communication on ISM is a rare occurrence in Denmark (as this study
indicates), and whether this is also the case in other countries. However, the study can be
used to theorize that three types of communication arenas can develop when organizations
introduce ISM. Furthermore, it can prompt a discussion as to why participatory
communication on ISM is so rare in the organizations studied, and as to how participatory
communication on ISM might benefit organizations.
The lack of participatory communication
Based on the two studies, the paper finds that when coworkers perceive that they have a
“license to critique” ( Jagd, 2010), ISM has the potential to create a new kind of participatory
organizational communication. The question is, however, whether the introduction of ISM
within organizations is likely to cause radical change in the workplace. Based on the
multiple case study, it can be argued that organizations are not really prepared to listen to
critical coworker voices, not even in the Scandinavian countries, where communicative
leadership is practiced ( Johansson, 2015). Organizations want engaged coworkers to share
knowledge, acknowledging that this can result in better products and services, which will
benefit the organization; however, they are not prepared to empower coworkers and give
them license to critique their strategies, mission statements and values. In exceptional
organizations – such as Jyske Bank and the organization in Fägersten’s case study
(Fägersten, 2015) – ISM can encourage participatory communication that can help move,
construct and redefine the organization.
The quiet arena: ISM is primarily used for one-way
communication from one or more departments
The knowledge sharing arena: ISM is a multidirectional arena primarily used to share knowledge
about tasks, products and customers and knowledge
grows out of knowledge conversations
The participatory communication arena: ISM is a
multi-vocal communication arena where many
different voices interact and communicate about
tasks, products and customers as well as about the
organizations’ strategy and identity
Figure 3.
Three types of
communication arenas
created by ISM
623
Participatory
communication
on ISM
Several explanations spring to mind as to why participatory communication is so rare in
the organizations studied. Interactivity has been possible since the first intranets were
introduced in organizations in the mid-1990s (Heide, 2015), employee participation has been
discussed for more than 50 years in the academic literature (Ruck, 2015) and social media
has brought new communication practices to organizational communication (Men and
Bowen, 2016; Ruck, 2015). However, this paper and several other studies have found that
organizations are slow to develop communication on ISM (Men and Hung-Baesecke, 2015;
Sievert and Lipp, 2016), and that management style (Baptista and Galliers, 2012) and
organizational culture (Martin et al., 2015; Vuori and Okkonen, 2012) influence
communication on ISM. In other words, conditions inherent in the organization prevent
participatory communication on ISM from developing. This reflects that paradoxes in
participation (Stohl and Cheney, 2001) are an issue, even if the technical setup and the
mindset to develop participatory communication are present. Thus, participatory
communication on ISM is a relational phenomenon constructed in social interactions
between leaders, coworkers and the organizational contexts, and many different dynamics
that interact can potentially prevent participatory communication from developing.
First, the organization – or rather, its managers – may fear losing control or might not
wish to give coworkers real influence. The literature on participation distinguishes between
different levels of participation (Lewis, 2011; Wilkinson et al., 2013), and it might be argued
that organizations are interested in making coworkers more engaged, but they are not really
prepared to pay the price in terms of allowing coworkers control in decision making
( Johansson, 2015). The introduction of ISM therefore becomes a symbolic act (Lewis, 2011;
Stohl and Cheney, 2001), reflecting the hope that ISM will improve innovation and
knowledge sharing without any requirement to empower employees, which highlights the
paradox of power in participation (Stohl and Cheney, 2001).
Second, managers might be prepared to empower coworkers, but the organizational
context might prevent this from happening. Denyer et al. (2011) found that organizations
with a competitive organizational culture had difficulties in developing communication on
ISM. Coworkers must perceive safety of voice before they will speak their mind (Morrison,
2014), and in many respects, trust therefore seems to be a prerequisite for participatory
communication to develop on ISM. Managers must trust coworkers and their willingness to
display organizational citizenship (Ridder, 2004), coworkers must trust that managers
appreciate their inputs and comments and coworkers must trust that other coworkers will
react positively or at least constructively to their comments and knowledge sharing. The
different risks influence coworkers, and self-censorship may prevent them from voicing
their opinion if they perceive that the organizational context does not support their voice in a
constructive manner (Madsen and Verhoeven, 2016).
Third, both managers and the organizational context might support employee voice, but
coworkers might still not voice their opinion if they do not perceive efficacy of voice
(Morrison, 2014). If the managers do not listen to coworker voices or find ways to
accommodate their proposals and suggestions, coworkers will perceive their voices to be in
vain. This could happen if organizations have not really considered their purpose for
introducing ISM (Heide, 2015). On realizing how discussions can develop, the managers
might, intentionally or unintentionally, prevent discussions from developing, as indicated
by Stohl and Cheney (2001). In this line of thought, managers may not have considered
using ISM as part of communicative leadership, or managers may not be fully equipped to
engage in responsive communication behavior ( Johansson, 2015).
The benefit of participatory communication
According to the study, organizations are reluctant to give coworkers a “license to critique”
the organization on ISM, but the question is whether the advantages of doing so would
624
CCIJ
23,4
outnumber the risks. Participatory communication on ISM involves coworkers in the
negotiation and construction of organizational identity (Fägersten, 2015; Madsen, 2016),
which is likely to not only engage but also empower coworkers ( Johansson, 2015). The
quality of non-task-related communication is vital in creating trust in management (Ridder,
2004), and when critical and constructive communication is visible in the ISM arena, the
organization will come across as authentic and transparent. In this respect, participatory
communication is a way of building trust in the organization and of developing
organizational ownership. Coworkers are much more prepared to display organizational
citizen behavior when they trust the organization (Ridder, 2004), and organizations
increasingly depend on coworkers acting as brand ambassadors on social media, which
implies that organizations need to develop trust in the organization. At the same time,
younger generations have come to expect transparency and authenticity of their workplace
(Men and Hung-Baesecke, 2015), and participatory communication may be a way of
attracting and retaining them.
7. Conclusion
ISM does not of its own accord give rise to participatory communication. The two
exploratory case studies presented here found that different levels of communication were
reached in different types of organizations. The article, therefore, proposes a distinction
should be made between three different types of communication arenas on ISM: a quiet
arena, a knowledge-sharing arena and a participatory communication arena. The
knowledge-sharing arena has the potential to engage coworkers, while the participatory
arena also has the potential to empower coworkers. These two types of arenas overlap
somewhat, but an important difference is found between them. Only when coworkers
perceive that they have a license to critique will the organization actually develop
participatory communication that is capable of moving, influencing or even changing
the organization.
Theoretical and practical implications
Participatory communication on ISM seems to develop from a complex blending of
organizational factors and coworker trust in the organization, in management and in other
coworkers. In this respect, participatory communication is not a managerial-driven process
as previously described (Lewis, 2011; Wilkinson et al., 2013). This paper finds that ISM is an
interactive and dynamic communication arena, and that participatory communication on
ISM is a co-constructed process among coworkers, middle managers and top managers.
These findings are based on two qualitative studies, and large-scale, empirical studies of
ISM across several and various organizations in multiple countries should be conducted to
confirm the findings. Furthermore, further research should be conducted to provide insights
into how interactions between coworkers, middle managers and top managers in the ISM
communication arena can develop into participatory communication, and how, with its
focus on managers’ ability to listen ( Johansson, 2015), communicative leadership can be
used to develop this type of communication.
Organizations that wish to develop participatory communication on ISM have to be
patient. It takes time to develop coworker trust (Ridder, 2004), and the lack of trust has
been found to be one of the main reasons why organizations have not fully integrated ISM
in their internal communication (Sievert and Lipp, 2016). The organization must, therefore,
focus on developing their communication on ISM rather than considering the risks.
Coworkers must perceive that they are able to speak freely. Communication on ISM will
not develop in the same way as on public social media since coworker self-censorship
influences coworkers to contribute in a constructive manner in an organizational context
(Madsen and Verhoeven, 2016).
625
Participatory
communication
on ISM
References
Baptista, J. and Galliers, R.D. (2012), “Social media as a driver for new rhetorical practices in
organisations”, 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, IEEE Computer
Society, pp. 3540-3549.
Coombs, W.T. and Holladay, S.J. (2014), “How publics react to crisis communication efforts: comparing
crisis response reactions across sub-arenas”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 40-57.
Cooren, F. (2004), “Textual agency: how texts do things in organizational settings”, Organization,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 373-393.
Cooren, F. (2012), “Communication theory at the center: ventriloquism and the communicative
constitution of reality”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Cooren, F., Fairhurst, G. and Huët, R. (2012), “Why matter always matters in (organizational)
communication”, in Leonardi, P.M., Nardi, B.A. and Kallinikos, J. (Eds), Materiality and
Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 296-314.
Denyer, D., Parry, E. and Flowers, P. (2011), “ ‘Social’,‘open’ and ‘participative’? Exploring personal
experiences and organisational effects of enterprise2.0 use”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 44 No. 5,
pp. 375-396.
Downs, C.W. and Adrian, A.D. (2004), Assessing Organizational Communication: Strategic
Communication Audits, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Fägersten, K.B. (2015), “Snuff said!: conflicting employee and corporate interests in the pursuit of a
tobacco client”, in Darics, E. (Ed.), Digital Business Discourse, Palgrave Macmillan, New York,
NY, pp. 142-159.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), “Five misunderstandings about case-study research”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 219-245.
Frandsen, F. and Johansen, W. (2010), “Crisis communication, complexity, and the cartoon affair: a case
study”, in Coombs, W.T. and Holladay, S.J. (Eds), The Handbook of Crisis Communication,
Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 425-448.
Frandsen, F. and Johansen, W. (2016), Organizational Crisis Communication. A Multivocal Approach,
Sage, London.
Fulk, J. (1993), “Social construction of communication technology”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 921-950.
Grunig, J.E. and Hunt, T.T. (1984), Managing Public Relations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, NY.
Heide, M. (2015), “Social intranets and internal communication: dreaming of democracy in
organizations”, in Coombs, W.T., Falkheimer, J., Heide, M. and Young, P. (Eds), Strategic
Communication, Social Media and Democracy: The Challenge of the Digital Naturals, Routledge,
London, pp. 45-53.
Heron, A.R. (1942), Sharing Information With Employees, Standford University Press, CA.
Huang, J., Baptista, J. and Galliers, R.D. (2013), “Reconceptualizing rhetorical practices in organizations:
the impact of social media on internal communications”, Information & Management, Vol. 50
No. 2, pp. 112-124.
Jagd, S. (2010), “Værdibaseret ledelse”, in Olsen, P.B., Rendtorff, J.D. and Fuglsang, L. (Eds),
Virksomhedsledelse: Positioner, Teorier og Strategier, Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg, pp. 92-109.
Johansson, C. (2015), “Empowering employees through communicative leadership”, in Melo, A.D.,
Sommerville, I. and Gonçalves, G. (Eds), Organisational and Strategic Communication Research:
European Perspectives II, CECS-Publicações/eBooks, Braga, pp. 85-110.
626
CCIJ
23,4
King, N. (2012), “Doing template analysis”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds), Qualitative
Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, Sage, London, pp. 426-450.
Koch, H., Gonzalez, E. and Leidner, D. (2012), “Bridging the work/social divide: the emotional response
to organizational social networking sites”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 21
No. 6, pp. 699-717.
Leftheriotis, I. and Giannakos, M.N. (2014), “Using social media for work: losing your time or improving
your work?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 134-142.
Lewis, L.K. (2011), Organizational Change: Creating Change Through Strategic Communication, John
Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex.
Liu, W., Zhu, R. and Yang, Y. (2010), “I warn you because I like you: voice behavior, employee
identifications, and transformational leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 189-202.
Madsen, V.T. (2016), “Constructing organizational identity on internal social media: a case study of
coworker communication in Jyske Bank”, International Journal of Business Communication,
Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 200-223.
Madsen, V.T. (2017), “The challenges of introducing internal social media-the coordinators’ roles and
perceptions”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 2-16.
Madsen, V.T. and Verhoeven, J.W. (2016), “Self-censorship on internal social media: a case study of
coworker communication behavior in a Danish bank”, International Journal of Strategic
Communication, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 387-409.
Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G.C. and Azad, B. (2013), “The contradictory influence of social media
affordances on online communal knowledge sharing”, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 38-55.
Martin, G., Parry, E. and Flowers, P. (2015), “Do social media enhance constructive employee voice all of
the time or just some of the time?”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 541-562.
Marwick, A.E. and boyd, d. (2011), “I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context
collapse, and the imagined audience”, New Media & Society, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 114-133.
Mazzei, A. (2014), “Internal communication for employee enablement: strategies in American and
Italian companies”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 82-95.
Men, L.R. and Hung-Baesecke, C.J.F. (2015), “Engaging employees in China: the impact of
communication channels, organizational transparency, and authenticity”, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 448-467.
Men, R.L. and Bowen, S.A. (2016), Excellence in Internal Communication Management, Business
Expert Press, New York, NY.
Miller, P. (2016), “How intranets and related technologies are redefining internal communications”,
in Wright, M. (Ed.), Gower Handbook of Internal Communication, CRC Press, New York, pp. 189-198.
Morris, M.R., Teevan, J. and Panovich, K. (2010), “What do people ask their social networks, and why?:
a survey study of status message Q&A behavior”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1739-1748.
Morrison, E.W. (2014), “Employee voice and silence”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 173-197.
Neergaard, H. (2007), Udvælgelse af cases i kvalitative undersøgelser [Selection of cases in qualitative
research], Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg.
Parry, E. and Solidoro, A. (2013), “Social media as a mechanism for engagement?”, in Bondarouk, T.
and Olivas-Lujan, M.R. (Eds), Social Media in Human Resources Management, Vol. 12, Emerald
Group Publishing, Bingley, pp. 121-141.
Redding, W.C. (1972), Communication Within the Organization: An Interpretive Review of Theory and
Research, Industrial Communication Council, New York, NY.
627
Participatory
communication
on ISM
Ridder, J.A. (2004), “Organisational communication and supportive employees”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 20-30.
Ruck, M.K. (Ed.) (2015), Exploring Internal Communication: Towards Informed Employee Voice,
Gower Publishing, Burlington.
Sievert, H. and Lipp, L. (2016), “Let’s talk’ social(ly)’! How internal social media can help to shape value
and innovation in a company–and why it often fails: new results of German interview surveys
2013-16”, EUPRERA Congress 2016, Groningen, September 29.
Stohl, C. and Cheney, G. (2001), “Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: communication and the
dilemmas of organizational democracy”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 349-407.
Treem, J.W. and Leonardi, P.M. (2012), “Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances
of visibility, editability, persistence, and association”, Communication Yearbook, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 143-189.
Uysal, N. (2016), “Social collaboration in intranets the impact of social exchange and group norms on
internal communication”, International Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 181-199.
Vuori, V. and Okkonen, J. (2012), “Knowledge sharing motivational factors of using an
intra-organizational social media platform”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 592-603.
Welch, M. (2012), “Appropriateness and acceptability: employee perspectives of internal
communication”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 246-254.
Wilkinson, A., Townsend, K. and Burgess, J. (2013), “Reassessing employee involvement and
participation: atrophy, reinvigoration and patchwork in Australian workplaces”, Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 583-600.
Yin, R.K. (2014), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5 ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
About the author
Vibeke Thøis Madsen is Assistant Professor in Organizational and Digital Communication at the
Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University in Denmark. Her research interests
include coworkers as communicators on internal social media, and participatory communication in
organizations. In addition, she is interested in organizational communication, internal communication,
employee voice and organizational identity. Vibeke Thøis Madsen can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
628
CCIJ
23,4