Exploring a critical and ethical approach to internal

communication

Introduction

A number of scholars (L'Etang, 2006, Heath, 2009, Holtzhausen, 2002) have argued

for an alternative, critical, approach to public relations theory. The dominant,

modernist, excellence theory, privileges management discourse and takes

organisational goals for granted (Holtzhausen and Voto, 2002 p.60) whereas critical

theory is focused more on the disruption of beliefs about organisations and publics

(Toth, 2009 p.53). Excellence theory has led to a focus on the strategic management

of communication, often grounded in information transfer, for example, senior

manager-employee communication. Critical theory is less interested in effective

communication and more motivated by asking questions about whose interests are

being served through communication. As Lee and Cheng (2011 p.47) observe,

although there is much discussion about the ethics of public relations, largely due to

the association of public relations with manipulation, propaganda and spin, “there is

little systematic empirical or theoretical research on ethical leadership in public

relations”. Public relations theory and approaches to ethical practice are inextricably

linked and as Bowen (2004 p.68) suggests, the field is “fraught with ethical

dilemmas”. Despite the growing development of postmodern (Holtzhausen, 2002),

and rhetorical and critical (Toth, 2009) perspectives for public relations, academics in

both fields tend to focus their analysis on external communication rather than internal

communication. This ignores the evidence for the increasing importance of internal

communication (Moreno et al., 2010 p, 101). It also sidesteps the challenging

contention that internal communication is the last refuge for the propagandist (Morris

and Goldsworthy, 2008 p.130). The implicit assumption is that generic critical theory

about public relations applies in exactly the same way to internal communication as it

1|Page
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
does to external communication. This paper challenges that notion. It argues for

another level of application of the theory as the relationship between managers and

employees is qualitatively different from that of managers with other stakeholder

groups. The paper also examines associated ethical issues for internal

communication. It includes a review of codes of practice and calls for an updated

approach to setting standards in the field.

Critical communication theory

The key introduction of critical theory to public relations, according to Toth (2009, p.

52), can be dated back to Dozier and Lauzen (2000 p.3) in a move away from the

social scientific principles that underpin Grunig’s (2001) excellence theory. Toth

(2009, p. 54) claims that critical theorists “...marshal their evidence, expose faulty

arguments, and/or provoke us with uncomfortably new ideas”. Critical theory

therefore contrasts with key tenets of the dominant paradigm, excellence theory, that

focus on how public relations contributes to organizational effectiveness. Grunig

(1992) explains that excellence theory is “a theory based on the approach of

interpretive social science, although it shares common elements with rhetorical and

critical theories” and asserts that:

Communication with the CEO and others in top management seems to be an

integral component of the symmetrical communication system that is a key

attribute of an excellent organization.

Symmetry is a fundamental component of excellence theory, a process that Grunig

(2001, p. 28) describes as “...collaborative advocacy, and cooperative antagonism”.

2|Page
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
Though critical theorists have criticised symmetry as idealistic and too linked to

organisational interests (McKie and Munshi, 2007 p.36), it clearly pursues a path that

is not too far removed from many of the aims of critical thinking, such as greater

participation and collaboration. As Botan and Taylor (2004 p.652) highlight, critical

theorists, rhetorical theorists and excellence theorists are all interested in the

communication between groups and organisations and how this is negotiated during

change - and the most co-creational theory is symmetrical/excellence theory.

Deetz (2005 pp. 85-6) points out that organisations have often been guilty of

economic exploitation of workers and emphasises the importance of challenging

“distorted communication”. He sets out the case for an exploration of alternative,

critical, communication practices that allow greater democracy and more creative and

productive cooperation among stakeholders. This requires a “personal courage to

identify and challenge assumptions behind ordinary ways of perceiving...” combined

with “an activist dimension” (2005, p. 91). Deetz (2005, p. 94) explains that a critique

of domination and the ways that people subjugated often participate in their

subjugation is central to critical theory. Demonstrating how forms of distorted

communication obscure reality and the use of forums where conflicts can be

discussed and resolved is put forward as the alternative approach to communication.

In terms of internal communication, this is, according to Williams and Adam-Smith

(2010 p.301), often one-way with minimal opportunity for feedback, although little

attention is given in the literature as to how far internal communication is “distorted”

or not. The possible domination of employees through overly-managed, asymmetric,

communication appears to largely go unchallenged by public relations academics

and practitioners alike. It is as if subtle communication power imbalances that exist

3|Page
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
between managers and employees in organisations are more acceptable and

legitimate than those that maybe exerted by organisations over external stakeholder

groups.

Models of employee participation in decision making, as an application of critical

communication theory to internal communication practice, are less prevalent in the

public relations literature than the more general discussion of underlying theoretical

principles. However, management theorists and human resource academics do

explore employee involvement and participation (EIP) and the potential linkages to

job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Miller, 2009 p.148). There is some

evidence to suggest that EIP operates on both affective and cognitive levels;

affective participation satisfying higher order needs (such as self-actualisation) and

cognitive participation satisfying knowledge flow needs that lead to more informed

decisions (Miller, 2009, p. 148-9). EIP has been extended by some critical theorists

(Cheney, 1995) to a general concept of workplace democracy, based on humanistic

principles about how people should be treated in society, including in organisations.

As Cheney argues (1995, p.167), “surely one of the great ironies of the modern world

is that democracy, imperfect as it is in the political realm, seldom extends to the

workplace”. Workplace democracy, according to Collins (1997) is a more ethically

superior approach than authoritarian management. However, organisational cultural

barriers to EIP and workplace democracy are likely to be significant. One difficulty in

exploring EIP is the elastic nature of defining what it is. A simple definition separates

it into two dimensions: direct, the participation of each individual (in team briefings or

problem-solving groups) and indirect participation, (through workplace committees)

(Cox et al., 2006 p. 251). This paper is focused on direct participation, as it is this

which is more associated with internal communication practice. A focus on more

participation is justified as, according to Tourish and Hargie (2004 p.190), managers

4|Page
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
suppress information, cover up negative financial data, deny failure, and run

propaganda campaigns that deny the existence of crises.

In their analysis of UK Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS) data from

1998, Cox et al. (2006, p. 260) note “...that embedded EIP practices have a stronger

association with organisational commitment than with job satisfaction”. It is the

combination of breadth and depth of EIP that Cox et al note is important, rather than

specific practices themselves. Other academics suggest that the expansion of the

breadth of EIP might be misleading. In a combined qualitative and quantitative study

involving professional workers at three UK based organisations, Danford et al. (2009

p.344) found that there is “...a significant gap between the rhetoric and reality of

information disclosure and consultation”. The study indicated that the organisations

all had an extensive breadth of participatory practices in place. Despite this, “workers

tended to provide low evaluations of consultation and related levels of influence, both

direct and indirect” (Danford et al., 2009, p. 346) and as one employee put it, “I’ve

viewed consultation as something like: senior management have 95 per cent or so of

the plan worked out and they consult us on minor details to give us a sense of

‘ownership’”. This form of “quasi” consultation is clearly fooling nobody. However,

employees appear to accept it as a way things are done. This is largely, according to

Danford et al. (2009, p. 348), because of an excessively hierarchical structure, work

overload, and the increase in reliance on electronic channels for communication –

noted for their relative weakness in power relations. It is clear that analysis of the

depth of EIP needs to go beyond simplistic “scope” and “top down/two-way”

descriptors to encompass the credibility of the process and to assess actions taken

by senior management as a result of dialogue. Without credibility, “quasi”

involvement might actually lead to greater employee cynicism than no involvement at

all.

5|Page
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
Power is the defining concept for critical theorists and this is linked to control and

domination (Miller, 2009, p. 101). Littlejohn and Foss (2008 p.265) suggest that

control takes many forms and these can be summarised as follows:

Simple control – direct power

Technical control – devices and technology

Bureaucratic control – procedures and rules

Concertive control – relationships and teamwork based on shared reality and

values.

Internal communication is often employed to communicate information about rules

and processes, especially when they are changed. It is also used to communicate

values, purpose, strategy, goals and brand. This can arguably be viewed as a further

form of control - if employees have little meaningful input to these higher level

organisational drivers. Concertive control exerted through management providing a

value based mission and leaving employees to work within this overarching

framework represents a move to a more subtle form of control. Berger (2005 p.6)

argues that it is precisely considerations of power that are missing from Grunig’s

concept of symmetrical communication. He suggests that there are three dimensions

to power:

Power over – dominance model, decision making characterised by control

and self interest

Power with – empowerment model, decision making through dialogue,

inclusion, and negotiation

6|Page
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
 Power to – forms of resistance used by public relations practitioners to try to

counter a dominance model.

Critical communication theorists emphasise participation in decision making and also

advocate forms of communication activism. They argue that this is required as

organisational discourse produces and reproduces power relationships. As Miller

(2009, p. 105) puts it, “organisational reality is socially constructed through

communicative interaction”. Holtzhausen (2000) links postmodern philosophy with

postmodern public relations practice. She also claims that practitioners should be

change agents, serve as the conscience of the organization, and give voice to those

without power in their relationship with the organization. This is a more ethical form of

practice. Holtzhausen and Voto (2009, p. 64) define the role of a public relations

practitioner as someone who will:

Preference employees’ and external publics’ discourse over that of

management, will make the most humane decision in a particular situation,

and will promote new ways of thinking and problem solving through dissensus

and conflict. These actions will contribute to a culture of emancipation and

liberation in the organization.

According to (Holtzhausen and Voto, 2009, p. 61), practitioners should use sources

of power themselves, such as personal characteristics, expertise, and opportunity to

obtain power in the organisation. They state that this should only be employed as a

positive force for change. However, they do not discuss the multiple range of

perspectives that might exist on precisely what constitutes a positive force.

7|Page
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
Deetz (1992) argues that the normal discourse of organisations is domination. This

consists of four dimensions that add up to systemically distorted communication:

Naturalisation – employees assume that goals are set by management and

are accepted by all

Neutralisation – employees believe that corporate information is neutral

Legitimation – the privileging of one management voice over all others

Socialisation – training so that employees adopt the given values of the

organisation.

One-way downward internal communication without, strong, embedded, credible EIP

is therefore potentially a form of propaganda that serves to reinforce a management

dominance over employees. As Waymer and NI (2009 p.222) argue: “Organisations

are symbolic communicative constructions...employees may find themselves battling

against the dominant discourse of the organisation”. Other organisational

communication academics have developed a theory that communication constitutes

organization (CCO) (Putnam et al., 2009 pp.1-5). Influenced by Weick (1995), CCO

is based on the principle that organisations are communicatively constituted. A

tentative definition of CCO is provided as:

Communicative constitution presumably embodies the material (composition

or elements), the formal (framing or forming), and the efficient causes
(principles or rules for governing) that bring organisations into existence.

Putnam et al. (2009, p. 2) concede that CCO “...vacillates between superficial

simplicity and confused complexity”. Communication is, though, more than “...social

8|Page
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
exchange, information processing, or a variable that occurs within an organisational

container” and CCO fundamentally challenges the assumption that organisations can

exist independently of communication. Instead of viewing organisations from an

excellence theory perspective, CCO adopts a social construction lens. This departs

from the view of internal communication as container based where messages travel

through channels and line manager-employee interactions. From a social

constructivist perspective, communication is not “simply a variable or the

transmission of information” (Putnam et al., 2009: 6), instead “it created and

recreated the social structures that formed the crux of organizing” through the use of

language, symbols, and constructed meanings. Fairhurst and Putnam (2004 p.10)

outline three dimensions for organisations as discursive constructions:

Organisations as objects – bureaucracies and products of social interactions

(present and past)

Organisations as perpetual states – communication as a dynamic process

that creates, sustains and transforms organisations

Organisations as grounded in action – discursive forms and practices

continuously, but the organisation mediates communication practices.

CCO is focused around the micro activities of perpetual states and the action

orientation of grounded action. It aims to extend these constructions through the

dynamic processes that intertwine them through what McPhee and Zaug (2009 p.33)

describe as four flows (see table 1).

9|Page
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
 Membership Who are we? Typified in job-seeking and
negotiation Socialisation, recruitment, a process of ongoing
identification, self- reputation and courtship, power-
positioning. claiming and spokesmanship.
Organizational What rules do we operate Official documents, decision making
self structuring by here? Managerial and planning forums,
activities. announcements, organisation
charts, manuals, employee surveys
and feedback.
Activity co- What work are we doing This flow recognises that
ordination together? Interactions organizational self structuring
that serve to align or directives can never be completely
adjust local work understood. It emphasises the way
activities. that people co-ordinate to solve
problems.
Institutional What external forces This flow is set at a more macro
positioning provide legitimacy and level, where communicators are
what kinds of “boundary spanners” building an
communication are image of the organisation as a
necessary to please viable relational partner.
them? External
communication.

Table 1: McPhee and Zaug’s Four Flows (2009, p.33)

The definitions themselves may not represent typical communication episodes, and

indeed, Putnam et al. (2009. p.13) acknowledge this and state that “the ideas

expressed in the four flows could be re-expressed, at least in part, through using

other distinctions.” Deetz and Brown (2004 pp.184-5) suggest that, at a constitutive

level, a communication focused perspective of organising draws attention to a politics

of perception and person formation. However, to develop communication as a

collaborative process is not without significant challenges. As Deetz and Brown

10 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
acknowledge, “Unfortunately, few companies appear to use collaboration processes

as part of their participation process”. This is because it requires a “different attitude

going into meetings and a different form of interaction in meetings”. This is where a

critical approach to internal communication can play an important role – in

challenging what Deetz and Brown (2004, p.187) call “native, common-sense

assumptions about communication and participation that privilege the self at the

expense of the other”.

In the following sections, the uniqueness of employees as a stakeholder group is

examined in more detail and the associated ethics of practice that are linked to a

critical theorist perspective are briefly explored.

Employees as a higher order stakeholder group

Public relations theory refers to stakeholders or publics to describe groups of people

that are important for an organisation. As Choo (2009 p.228) observes, the difference

between the two terms is often unclear. Stakeholder theory has origins in political

and management theory and a stakeholder is generally considered to be someone

who can affect, or is affected by, an organisation. Typical stakeholder groups are

employees, trade unions, financial investors, customers, suppliers, distributors, the

local community, local and central government, industry groups and the media.

Public relations theorists, (Grunig and Hunt, 1984 p.145) argue that the term publics

should apply to groups of people that face a problem or have an issue with an

organisation. Publics can either be apathetic, single issue, hot-issue, or all-issue.

Most of the discussion of stakeholders and/or publics centres on external groups.

However a notable exception is provided by Welch and Jackson (2007 p.183) who

argue that, “If internal communication is the strategic management of interactions

and relationships between stakeholders at all levels within organisations, these

11 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
stakeholders need to be identified.” Four generic stakeholder dimensions are

suggested in table 2.

Dimension Level Direction Participants Content

1. Internal line Line managers Predominantly Line Employees' roles

management / Supervisors two-way managers- Personal impact e.g. appraisal
communication employees discussions, team briefings
2. Internal team Team Two-way Employee- Team information e.g. team task
peer colleagues employee discussions
communication
3. Internal Project group Two-way Employee- Project information
project peer colleagues employee e.g. project issues
communication
4. Internal Strategic Predominantly Strategic Organisational / corporate issues
corporate managers / top one-way managers-all e.g. goals, objectives, new
communication management employees developments, activities and
achievements

Table 2: Welch and Jackson (2007) Rethinking Internal Communication, Corporate

Communications: An International Journal Vol. 12 No. 2, 2007 pp. 177-198

Johnson et al. (2008 p.156) provide an applied approach to general stakeholder

management by mapping groups according to levels of power and interest in an

issue. In an alternative mapping approach focused on employees, Quirke (2008

pp.11-12) identifies groups according to willingness to help and clarity on direction as

shown in figure 1.

12 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
Figure 1: Quirke’s (2008, p.11) matrix for employee clarity and willingness

Welch and Jackson’s analysis is a useful guide to typical internal stakeholder groups.

It departs from a situational theory approach that argues that publics form around

specific issues. The dimensions here suggest a more static stakeholder group

membership defined by role and work rather than by issue or campaign. The

disparaging term “refuseniks” applied to groups of employees who disagree with the

direction of the organisation in Quirke’s matrix undermines the potentially valid

critiques of strategy that senior managers could use as constructive upward

feedback. It is also unclear how employees in different groups can be formally

identified. In terms of stakeholder mapping, Holtzhausen (2000) argues that it is not

power or interest that is important but the lack of opportunity for stakeholders to

participate in discussion about issues that they are interested in.

13 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
According to Rawlins (2006 p.3), in the public relations literature, there has been little

effort to identify stakeholders according to the relationship with the organization.

Grunig and Hunt (1984) distinguish categories of stakeholder linkages to

organisations as; enabling (stockholders, directors, legislators), normative

(professional associations), diffused (media, community, activists) and functional

(employees and suppliers). However, this categorisation does not extend to an

analysis of the qualitative differences in the nature of communication with different

stakeholder groups. Rawlins (2006, p.8) suggests that functional input linkages, such

as employees, have a legitimate claim on the organization and high levels of

involvement. They “are economically dependent on the organization, and as such,

the power resides primarily with the organization. Therefore, the organization has a

moral and legal responsibility to those stakeholders that also increases their priority”.

Wilson (2005) suggests that stakeholders should be considered from a

communication based perspective. Key publics are those whose participation and

cooperation are required to accomplish organizational goals. Wilson argues that

priority publics can be profiled by their demographics, lifestyles and values, media

preferences, cooperative networks, and self-interests. This external focus reflects a

tendency again in the public relations literature to identify employees as a key (or the

key) generic stakeholder group then to group them with a range of other external

stakeholder groups. It fails to explore the fundamentally different communication

requirements for employees. As a stakeholder group, employees have different

relationship requirements than other stakeholder groups. For example, an

employee’s personal identity is more closely linked to the organisation, an employee

is more financially dependent on the organisation and an employee’s emotional

commitment to an organisation is likely to be stronger than that of a customer or

14 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
supplier. In general, an employee is likely to have a longer term relationship with an

organisation than any other stakeholder group.

In terms of communication and relationship management with employees, Truss et

al. (2006 p.18) found that employees who feel well informed and have an opportunity

for upward communication are also highly engaged (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Downward and upward communication (Truss et al. 2006)

This highlights the operational benefits for organisations in providing opportunities for

employee involvement and participation. Most of the research conducted on

engagement and performance suggests that, in companies with high levels of

employee engagement, operating income improves. This can be by as much as 19.2

per cent over 12 months, according to consultants Towers-Perrin-ISR (2006).

Separate research conducted by Towers Perrin in 2004 suggests that “a 15 per cent

increase in engagement correlates with a 2.2 per cent increase in operating margin”

(cited in MacLeod and Brady, 2008 p.46). According to Gallup (2006) in addition to

profitability, other organisational benefits of employee engagement include higher

15 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
customer advocacy and higher productivity. Cook (2008 p.21) highlights research

that suggests that “highly engaged employees are 33 per cent less likely to leave

their organization within the next year”. However, caution should be given to these

findings as definitions of what engagement is vary and there is no commonly agreed

measurement instrument. Ultimately, it is unlikely that direct causal links can be

established between internal communication, employee engagement and improved

organisational performance or service. However, paradoxically, a critical theory

approach to internal communication that emphasises employee involvement and

participation may also be one that leads to better organisational performance. This is

effectively what Grunig argues in his concept of symmetrical communication,

although this has not been fully applied to the internal communication environment in

the literature. It is an approach that Indian businessperson, Nayar (2010 p. 12)

develops in advocating employee first, customers second thinking. This entails

turning the organisation on its head so that managers are accountable to those who

create value not the other way round. In a services company, the focus on supporting

employee value and knowledge creation can lead in turn to better customer service.

Ethics

In public relations theory, significant attention is paid to the ethics of external

communication and the responsibility of the profession to wider society (Gregory,

2009, pp. 274-289). This tends to focus on external communication although there

are clear linkages between internal and external communication ethics. As Seeger

(2004 p.223) observes, stifling employee voice and dissent may be connected to

investor deception, as in the case of Enron. Part of the question of communication

ethics is the duty of the individual practitioner. Gregory (2009 pp.280-2) highlights

Seib and Fitzpatrick’s (1992) four duties; self, client or organisation, profession, and
16 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
society. For the internal communicator these could be amended to self, employees,

profession and organisational involvement. However, models of internal

communication ethics are conspicuous through their absence in the literature.

Furthermore, the relative failure of organisations to acknowledge the importance of

the ethics of internal communication is, arguably, an example of distorted

communication that keeps the subject off the management agenda. This is despite

the existence of several codes of conduct for communication professionals. For

example, the UK’s Institute of Internal Communication’s (IoIC) code of practice is:

Members shall observe the highest ethical standards in the practice

of internal communications. They shall seek to serve the best interests of their

employers, clients, employees, colleagues and others with whom they deal in

their role as internal communicators.

Unfortunately, this code is remarkably limited in scope; omitting major components

such as truth, honesty, and organisational democracy with no process in place for

dealing with malpractice. It is a code that obfuscates. On the other hand, the UK’s

Chartered Institute of Public Relations code is more wide-ranging, with detailed

principles of good practice in four categories; integrity, competence, transparency

and avoiding conflicts of interest, and confidentiality. There is also a Professional

Practices Committee that considers breaches of the code. The code does make

some specific references to employees, though it is, in general, written from an

external communication perspective. According to Seeger (2004, p. 232), in the US,

the National Communication Association (NCA) has a code of practice that covers a

broad set of ethical traditions such as honesty, truthfulness, free speech,

condemnation of hate speech, the ethic of care, privacy, respect, social justice,

17 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
responsibility and responsiveness. Although these factors are undeniably laudable

what is missing are specific references to employee involvement, participation and

workplace democracy. Free speech within organisations is to be admired, but what if

nobody is listening? Codes of communication conduct are either vague (IoIC) or

more generally related to external communication (CIPR and NCA) than internal

communication. Consideration should be given to a more specific code of internal

communication that incorporates authentic information provision and establishes

opportunities for employee voice that are seriously considered as sine non qua

components of ethical internal communication practice. For example, the Stockholm

Accords, a new set of guidelines for public relations practice developed by the World

Public Relations Forum in 2010, acknowledges the importance of collaboration in

internal communication. It states that practitioners should “Seek constant feedback

for a mutual understanding of how – and how well – organisational leaders

collaborate and communicate with stakeholders”. Despite the importance of codes

they cannot ever be a panacea for resolving the lack of workplace involvement and

participation. As Seeger (2004, p. 232) highlights, “Enron had an extensive ethical

code which included explicit provisions about ethical communication”. The ethical

considerations for communication are often very complex, with personal tensions for

practitioners. For example, the relative nature of how we define truth, a core element,

is, in itself, problematic. Gregory (2009, p. 284) suggests that providing partial stories

to the media is misleading by omission and if a practitioner has clearly sought to

mislead this would be unethical. The same principle surely applies to management

information provided to employees. However, enforcing this requires detailed

investigation into analysing whether an omission was deliberate or not and this

probably explains why few, if any, cases of external communication malpractice

through deliberate omission have been reported by professional institutes.

18 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
Holtzhausen and Voto (2009, p. 64) argue that general, societal, codes of conduct

based on normative standards of right and wrong should be replaced with individual,

ethically responsible decision making. This is because normative standards are often

unjust and simply privilege those already in power. A focus on more situational

factors and individual ethics is attractive in that it enables practitioners to use

appropriate judgment for particular circumstances. However, unless it is based on

certain, agreed, general communication principles, it leaves practice open to a variety

of approaches that practitioners could simply justify through an idiosyncratic belief

system.

Conclusion

New critical and postmodern schools of thought within public relations have

challenged the dominant paradigm, excellence theory, in the last decade. These

focus on the power of the organisation over its relationship with stakeholder groups,

and look at communication more from a stakeholder perspective than an

organisational perspective. This paper has argued that critical public relations theory

is almost exclusively applied to the field of external communication and internal

communication has largely been ignored. However, albeit working from a different

academic school to public relations, organisational communication academics in the

US have developed high level theoretical and conceptual arguments about workplace

democracy and the constitutive nature of communication for organisations. These

schools of thought provide a new lens for understanding the importance of internal

communication, although they are rarely applied to research of practice. As a result,

there is a significant gap in the literature that applies critical theory to internal

communication. This is revealing on two levels; one, it suggests that internal

communication is still the “poor cousin” to external communication in public relations

academic research, and two, despite the public relations literature pointing to the

19 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
overriding importance of employees as a stakeholder group, communication with

them is deemed to be less worthy of analysis than for other stakeholder groups.

Clear differences between critical and excellence theory have been explored.

However, there are also some common elements that can be found in the concept of

symmetrical communication. Although workplace democracy may appear to be a

threatening concept to those holding power in organisations, there is practitioner

based evidence to suggest that employee involvement and participation actually lead

to better organisational performance. Letting go of control over employees and

providing them with better levels of information and a voice in what goes on leads to

a “win-win” situation for employees and the organisation alike.

Finally, the associated connection from theory to ethical internal communication

practice is also under-researched. Institutional codes of practice are either too vague,

unenforceable, or not specific enough to internal communication. Despite the

shortcomings of codes of practice that have highlighted, there is a clear case for

more detailed codes to be developed that at least set the tone for internal

communication as field that is responsible for effective information provision and

mechanisms for meaningful employee voice.

20 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011
References

21 | P a g e
©Kevin Ruck University of Central Lancashire and
PR Academy
March 2011