University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Employee communications: A network view. The use of network analysis to explore and refine employee communications within team-based organizations

(USC Thesis Other)

Employee communications: A network view. The use of network analysis to explore and refine employee communications within team-based organizations

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS: A NETWORK VIEW
THE USE OF NETWORK ANALYSIS TO EXPLORE AND REFINE EMPLOYEE
COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN TEAM-BASED ORGANIZATIONS
by
Margot J. Wright
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)
May 2006
Copyright 2006 Margot J. Wright
UMI Number: 1437578
1437578
2006
Copyright 2006 by
Wright, Margot J.
UMI Microform
Copyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
All rights reserved.
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
Dedication
“Wisdom is not a product of schooling, but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.”
- Albert Einstein
To William and Jean Wright, Tom and Cleo Parsons, and Benjamin and Mary Louise
Wright for instilling in me a lifelong passion for learning, and supporting me in all of my
endeavors, academic or otherwise.
ii
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
List of Figures iv
Abstract v
Introduction 1
Literature Review 2
Research Questions 9
Methodology 10
Communication Audit 10
Network Analysis 12
Findings 16
Company-wide Meetings 16
Other Face-to-Face Activities 17
Company Newsletter 20
Intranet 23
Network Analysis 25
Discussion 31
Implications 32
Limitations and Possibilities for Further Research 33
Glossary 35
Bibliography 37
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Phelps Group’s Team Based Network 26
Figure 2: The Phelps Group’s Team-Based Network with Node 24
Removed 28
iv
Abstract
An audit of a representative company’s employee communication materials was
conducted, and the company’s formal communication networks were studied in order to
investigate if the network structure of team-based companies influences the dissemination
of employee relations materials. It was found that in this case administrative employees
play a large role in both the creation and spreading of those messages throughout the
network. The study concludes with a discussion of what implications a company’s
network structure may have for public relations practitioners when designing employee
relations programs.
v
Introduction
The field of organizational communication investigates communication channels,
the communication climate, superior-subordinate communication and network analysis
within and among organizations large and small. The study of organizational
communication grew as a synthesis of administrative science, social and industrial
psychology and organizational behavior (Putnam & Cheney, 1995).
Organizational communication is an essential area of study for public relations
practitioners, especially those who specialize in the field of employee communications.
Organizational communications examines the way employees communicate with each
and their supervisors, both in the professional and social arenas. Employee relations
practitioners can better reach their target audiences if they have the tools to study
organizational communication and draw accurate conclusions from their results. This
paper will examine one of the organizational communication disciplines, the science of
network analysis. We will delve into the potential uses of network analysis for employee
relations practitioners, and its utility in examining team-based organizations. Our primary
focus is on internal communications within U.S. corporations.
1
Literature Review
According to Cutlip et al, “An organization’s most important relationships are
those with employees at all levels…these publics represent an organization’s greatest
resource, its people” (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2000, p. 287-288). Accordingly, Cutlip et
al identify seven conditions that classify successful working relationships, including:
“confidence and trust between employer and employees, candid information flowing
freely up, down and sideways, satisfying status and participation for each person,
continuity of work without strife, healthful surroundings, success for the enterprise and
optimism about the future” (Cutlip, et al., 2000, p. 288-289). To ensure that these seven
conditions are met, employee relations practitioners must be familiar with all facets of a
company’s working environment.
Network analysis is a powerful tool that employee relations practitioners can use
to analyze many of the seven factors of successful working relationships identified by
Cutlip et al. Network analysis is the science of examining networks within groups and
organizations, or according to Monge and Contractor “consists of applying a set of
relations to an identified set of entities” (Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 30). Network
analysis is often used to examine social networks which “consists of a finite set or sets of
actors and the relation or relations defined on them” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 20).
The principles that govern network analysis can be used to examine many
different kinds of networks. When examining organizations, network analysis is most
commonly used to study the communication flow between employees within an
2
organization as well as with groups outside the company. According to Monge and
Contractor communication networks are “patterns of contact that are created by the flow
of messages among communicators through time and space.” This definition
differentiates a communication network from a social network by stating that the
important element, the messages are what link people or organizations (Monge &
Contractor, 2003, p. 3).
The functional unit of a network is a node, which consists of a particular
individual within the network. These nodes are connected to other nodes within the
network through communication. The connection that a particular node has with other
nodes within the network is measured in degrees. Degrees can be divided into two
classifications. In-degrees are the number of directional links going from other nodes to
one specific node, while out-degrees measure the number of directional links going from
one node to those nodes it is connected to (Monge & Contractor, 2003). Nodes and links
are the building blocks of any network.
As connections between nodes and links grow they build larger and larger
network structures. The most basic of these relationships is the dyad, which Wasserman
and Faust define as “a pair of actors and the (possible) tie(s) between them” (Wasserman
& Faust, 1994, p. 18). Much of the research on dyads focuses on relationships between
pairs of individuals within a network, specifically whether or not reciprocal relationships
exist. A dyad can then grow into a triad, which is “a subset of three actors and the
(possible) tie(s) among them” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 19). By studying triads,
network researchers are able to examine how relationships between three individuals in
3
the network are balanced, and how the relationships between dyads affect the overall
nature of the triad (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Studying dyads and triads allows network
scholars to glean more information when looking at larger groups within networks,
helping them take a micro perspective when examining how communication spreads
through the network as a whole.
One way to view networks is to look at them as the conduit through which buzz
spreads. According to Rosen (2000) buzz is the interpersonal messages that spreads about
a brand, product, event, person or cause. It spreads between people through interpersonal
networks. One can measure buzz by tracking it through networks of people, to see how
fast it travels, where it goes, and what path it takes to get there. Buzz is similar to the idea
of contagion, which is “based on the assumption that the opportunities for contact
provided by communication networks serve as a mechanism that exposes people, groups
and organizations to information, attitudinal messages and the behavior of others”
(Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 175). In the case of employee relations practitioners, the
most important buzz is related to information about the working environment.
Rosen (2000) identifies ten principles of that govern social networks. The first is
the principle that networks are invisible. For example, employees in an organization
might know who they talk to on a daily basis (people with one degree of separation). But,
employees do not necessarily know who they are connected to through the people they
interact with daily. The network continues to spread out from there, with employees only
being aware of those connections they form with coworkers directly. This is one of the
reasons that network analysis is such a powerful tool for employee relations practitioners,
4
because it allows them to visualize and draw conclusions from networks which would
otherwise be unseen by individuals within the network.
Since most networks are invisible to all but those who study them, scholars have
found a distinct disconnect between how people perceive networks, and the actual nature
of the network. According to Monge and Contractor (2003) the concept of cognitive
social structures shows that during self-report based network analysis data collection
some members of the network will report that relationships exist between two other
individuals because the norm says that the relationship should exist, regardless of
whether it does or not.
Rosen (2000) states that people have a tendency to link to others who are similar
to them, a tendency which has been studied by many network scholars. Monge and
Contractor identify this tendency as homophily, wherein “similarity is thought to ease
communication” (Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 224). According to McPherson, Smith-
Lovin and Cook “homophily is the principle that contact between similar people occurs at
a higher rate than dissimilar people”(McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001, p. 415).
According to Monge and Contractor there are two major hypotheses that support the idea
of homophily, the similarity-attraction hypothesis and the theory of self-categorization.
The similarity-attraction hypothesis (Byrne, 1971) centers on the idea that to avoid
conflict within an organization people will gravitate towards those who have similar
personalities and interests. The theory of self-categorization (Turner, 1987) states that
people will place themselves into a specific category depending on their demographic
profile, and seek out people within their work environment who have similar profiles.
5
Another of Rosen’s (2000) principles of social networks is that people talk to
those around them. Indeed, others have found that “proximity facilitates the likelihood of
communication by increasing the probability that individuals will meet and interact”
(Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 227). “Organizational proximity is defined as two or
more people being in the same location where there is both the opportunity and
psychological obligation for face-to-face communication” (Monge, Rothman, Eisenberg,
Miller, & Kirste, 1985, September, p. 1129). The theory of proximity is used to explain
the development of many kinds of networks. When looking at organizational
communication, the theory of proximity can be used to look at the physical position of
employees within a company. The theory of proximity would postulate that those who
have offices close to each other, who work the same shifts, or work in the same
department would be more likely to form network ties than those employees who have
little contact.
In a study on proximity among 173 employees in a software company Monge et al
found that there is a “systematic variation within each day...as well as daily periodicity”
of employee’s proximity measures in the company (Monge, et al., 1985, September, p.
1138). Establishing the nature of this variation, specifically when proximity is high, or
when it it is low can help managers assess the level of face-to-face communication taking
place in the company. If the level is found to be inadequate, management can then take
steps to adjust the proximity of employees throughout the day (Monge, et al., 1985,
September).
6
The theory of proximity can be applied to other organizational research
perspectives, providing additional insight into an organization’s networks. One of these
perspectives examines communication gradients. According to Johnson, “gradients
represent communication levels and/or flows of varying intensity in some physically
bounded plane” (Johnson, 1992, p. 104). Gradients can be a valuable tool for network
researchers, allowing them to take into account the effect of the physical world on the
structure of networks. Studying the effect of the physical world on communication was
difficult before the theories surrounding gradients were developed, because according to
Johnson, “whereas physical factors have been found to be one of the major contributing
factors to communication structure, until recently no approach to communication
structure was capable of examining this association systematically” (Johnson, 1992, p.
108).
Both Rosen (2000) and Barabasi (Barabasi, 2002) examine the tendency of people
who are close to each other, or who share similar characteristics to form clusters within
networks. A cluster is defined as “sets of people who share similarities in some
dimension of their lives and, as a result, frequently communicate with one another”
(Rosen, 2000, p. 62). A cluster can also referred to as a clique, which in its most exacting
form is defined as “a maximally complete sub graph [wherein] the people within the
clique are all connected to each other, but not connected to anyone in the larger network
environment” (Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 32). One of the unique attributes of
cliques—the fact that they are usually isolated from the network at large—causes
7
information to become trapped within the small cluster group, hindering the flow of
communication.
This tendency may seem to spell the end for communication within networks, due
to the prevalence of clustering. But, there are certain individuals within networks who are
able to build bridges between these clusters, effectively opening up channels of
communication throughout the network. Barabasi observes “connectors—nodes with an
anomalously large number of links—are present in very diverse complex systems,
ranging from the economy to the cell. They are a fundamental property of most
networks” (Barabasi, 2002, p. 56). These ‘connectors’ may explain the “small world”
phenomenon wherein most people on the planet are famously separated by only six
degrees within networks (Watts, 2003). Since connectors are so central to the movement
of communication within organizations it is important to understand the types of people
who take on these roles (Barabasi, 2002). Rosen (2000) identifies four main network
hubs: regular, mega, expert and social.
A regular hub is a person who acts as a source of information for other people, in
one specific category. In an office setting an example of a regular hub would be the chief
financial officer. This individual would act as a source for payroll information and other
facts related to the financial operations of the company. Mega hubs are defined as people
who are widely seen and/or heard, such as press, celebrities, and politicians. These hubs
have many one-way links with people from many different backgrounds, which are
established through media such as TV, radio, print journalism, and the Internet.
8
Expert hubs have some type of expertise or authority in one specific area and
people trust their opinions because of this expertise. Expert hubs are similar to what
Gladwell (2000) dubs the “network maven,” a person who has a lot of knowledge about a
particular subject or product, and who wants to spread that information to other people.
Social hubs do not have any specific knowledge in an area but they are a hub
because of their personality and charisma. This type of hub may also be important in an
organizational setting due to employees’ need for emotional and social fulfillment at the
workplace. Finally, Gladwell (2000) defines one of the most important roles for
facilitation of network communication, the network connector. A network connector is
someone who knows people across diverse groups (clusters), and is able to seamlessly
integrate these groups together for the mutual benefit of all involved.
Research Questions
Due to the lack of literature examining the uses of network analysis to enhance
employee relations within companies, we have developed two research questions in the
pursuit of improving best practices in employee relations within the public relations
industry.
RQ 1: Does the network structure of team-based companies influence the
dissemination of employee relations materials?
RQ 2: What implications does a company’s network structure have for public
relations practitioners when designing employee relations programs?
9
Methodology
Communication Audit
In order to respond to the above questions, a two-pronged research approach is
necessary. First, an audit of a representative company’s employee relations materials and
practices must be conducted. This audit will examine any formalized touch points
between the company and its employees, including meetings, collateral materials and
interactive employee relations tools. After this audit is conducted, the organizational
structure of the company will be mapped using network analysis software. Based on the
network’s attributes suggestions for improvement in the communications materials
content and delivery will be made.
The company we will be examining during this discussion is a marketing
communications agency located in Southern California called The Network Company.
1

The company has 60 employees located in one central headquarters. The Network
Company is unique because instead of being organized in more traditional departments, it
is organized in client-centric self-managed teams. Specialists from advertising, public
relations, promotions, direct response and internet marketing all work together to
strategize and share information and ideas. This company will act as an ideal case study
subject because its numerous employee communication materials as well as its complex
network structure will allow for an in depth analysis of how companies can use network
analysis to improve employee communications.
1. Company name has been changed
10
According to the League of American Communications Professionals “a
communication audit is a two-way process of sending and receiving information between
an organization and its target audiences” (LACP, 2005, p. 1). Communication audits can
be used to evaluate the communications that exist between a company and any of its
audiences, and are often used to evaluate communication between a company and its
employees. According to Downs (1988) communication audits can serve a variety of
purposes, from looking at adequacy of information exchange, to the quality of
communication relationships, to how well communication media are used and to plot
communication networks.
Downs (1988) argues that an audit that assesses how well communication media
are used in an organization must start with “a comprehensive list of all channels used
within the organization includ[ing] institutionalized oral interactions as well as written
media” (Downs, 1988, p. 33). In this particular audit we will be examining the following
employee communications vehicles: weekly company-wide meetings, the monthly
company newsletter and the company intranet site. The audit will compare the above
materials against literature that speaks to some of the best practices in each area.
At this point the scope of this research only allows us to examine the formalized
communication channels of our chosen case study company. But, Downs (1988)
acknowledges the importance of the informal channels to the success of communication
within an organization. According to Downs “although the distinction between formal
and informal channels is not always clear-cut, the informal channel generally refers to the
grapevine or rumor mill, or to social interactions outside the formal structure” (Downs,
11
1988, p. 34). The study of these informal communication networks in relation to
employee communications is an area for future investigation.
Network Analysis
The audit of The Network Company’s communication materials will then allow
us to look at the company’s organizational network through an employee relations
framework. An audit of the organization’s formal communication networks is an
important tool for employee relations practitioners because it gives them insight into how
an organization processes information, and more specifically how employee relations
messages may be moving within the company (Downs, 1988). According to Downs
“[networks] enable the auditor to identify information pathways, to determine real or
potential bottlenecks, to determine how the communication linkages match the needs of
the task processes, and to analyze the roles that specific people play,” all important
information for practitioners looking to maximize the effects of messages and
information directed at employees (Downs, 1988, p. 38).
Network researchers use various methods to collect the data needed to visualize
and analyze an organization’s networks. The first of these is personal observation. This
technique consists of the auditor observing communication patterns over a set period of
time, thus enabling the researcher to set benchmarks and look at how communication
patterns change within the organization over time. This method has several distinct
disadvantages; one being that an external auditor is often unable to observe interactions
within an organization without disrupting natural employee behavior, jeopardizing the
12
validity of the data. Also, since an external auditor is not familiar with the day-to-day
rhythm of the organization, he or she may miss some meaningful communication that
takes place between two members of the network (Downs & Adrian, 2004).
A second, and more popular method of data collection among network
researchers, is to conduct a survey. A questionnaire is distributed to the members of the
organization who are subjects of the network audit. Some audits will examine all
members of the organization, while some will only look at certain departments or
workgroups, depending on the objectives of the auditor. One of the most important
considerations when crafting a questionnaire is its ability to elicit truthful and reliable
responses from respondents. According to Downs and Adrian “the overall goal should be
to develop a data collection form that is aesthetically pleasing, easy to fill out, and
complete in detail” (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 197).
Most questionnaires will instruct respondents to indicate how often they
communicate with specific individuals within their network, usually on a simple number
ranking scale (i.e. 1 to 5). Sometimes the survey instrument will be used to also gauge
which communication channels are being used by respondents (Downs & Adrian, 2004).
One drawback to using surveys to collect network data is that sometimes respondents
may report that communication relationships exist where they may not in actuality, due to
pressure to conform to the established reporting relationships within the company.
Finally, network researchers can use an organizational chart to visualize an
organization’s communication patterns. According to Downs “some networks are formal
because they follow the organizational structures. For example, if accurate, the
13
organizational chart is a description of a communication network because it prescribes
who has contact with whom” (Downs, 1988, p. 38). We will be using this method to
conduct our network research.
Using the team organizational chart provided by The Network Company we will
determine where communication links exist between teams, and will visualize the
resulting networks using UCI Net software (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). Since
we are examining a network of teams, and how employee relations communications
spread between these teams, each node in the network represents one individual team.
Each team is organized around a client project, with the exception of one team that
consists of the company’s administrative staff. Members of this team effectively hold a
place on every team. The smallest team in the network consists of four people, and the
largest consists of 15.
For the purposes of this research a link is considered to exist between teams when
they share one or more members. Due to the structure of The Network Company
employees work on multiple client teams simultaneously, meaning that individuals are
members of more than one group. While it is unusual to allow individuals to belong to
more than one group, our analysis must reflect the realities of the preexisting groups
within The Network Company.
In this case the shared team members are the links between teams because they
can act as conduits of information. These individuals are considered bridges because they
“serve as an intermediary between groups of people that are not directly connected to
other groups” (Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 38).
14
After examining The Network Company’s organizational chart that lists team
names as well as all members of the team we used binary coding to differentiate between
teams that share one or more members and teams that share no members. Teams that
share more one or more members were coded with a one (1) while teams that share no
members were coded with a zero (0). Since in this case a link is defined as a shared
member or members between two teams, all links in the network are reciprocal, meaning
that the relationship is bidirectional and acknowledged by both teams (Monge &
Contractor, 2003). These binary values were entered into a matrix in UCINet, which was
then analyzed by the program to produce a visual representation of the network.
15
Findings
Company-wide Meetings
The Network Company has three formal company-wide meetings per week. Each
of these three meetings has a specific purpose. One is held on Monday mornings and is
an opportunity for all employees to touch base and gear up for the week ahead. A
different employee hosts the meeting each week, and all employees are asked to
participate by making announcements, giving updates on new work in progress and
acknowledging accomplishments of their coworkers. This meeting is also an opportunity
for the CEO to address the whole company, an opportunity he often uses to share new
business updates, or offer inspiration for the week. The Monday meetings serve both an
educational and inspirational function with employees, helping to get the week off to a
good start (Phelps, 2002).
The second company-wide weekly meeting also takes place on Mondays during
the middle of the day. Lunch is ordered for this meeting and the whole agency joins
together to listen to an employee (again, a different volunteer each week) give an
educational seminar. These seminars fall into one of three categories, “cross training,”
“life training,” and “deep training” (Phelps, 2002, p. 147). Cross training allows
employees from different disciplines (advertising, public relations etc) to share in depth
information about their jobs with others in the hopes that the company will run more
smoothly if associates understand the job functions of others. Life training helps
employees improve their productivity in areas that are not directly related to work. Some
16
topics include time management and health. Finally, the deep training seminars allow
each discipline to break out and tackle a subject related to their job functions in more
depth.
The last opportunity that employees have to interact with all members of the
network is during a midday meeting on Thursdays. Again, lunch is ordered in for the
employees and everyone gathers to brainstorm ideas for a variety of clients. Teams with
work in progress are asked to submit it for critique in this unique forum.
While three meetings per week between members of the whole organization may
seem like an overabundance of face-to-face interaction, it is a prime opportunity for the
whole network to interact at once. Meetings are also effective employee relations
vehicles because they stress employee involvement and proactive participation. It is
expected that employees will run each of these meetings, without the upper echelon of
management having any involvement in scheduling or eliciting participation.
Other Face-to-Face Activities
Face-to-face interaction is an increasingly important element of employee
communications as more and more business is conducted virtually with the help of new
technology. While this new technology does increase the frequency and ease of sending
communications messages, the importance of face-to-face communication for increasing
employee involvement and morale should not be underestimated.
According to Salsbury and Ritter (Salsbury & Ritter, 1987, September/October)
face-to-face communication with employees is most effective when conveying personal
17
or emotional messages, shocking news, making personal introductions, conducting
discussion or negotiation or brainstorming. Along with relaying news and keeping
employees up to date with regard to the above items, meetings also “often serve critical
symbolic functions…[since] celebrating organizational members’ successes and
congratulating group achievements are important to the climate of the organization
(DeWine, 2001, p. 211).
Face-to-face communication is also essential in changing company culture and
getting employees to buy into new ideas or processes. According to Larkin and Larkin
employee communications practitioners should “choose face-to-face communication
when you need to overcome employee resistance. More than 50 years of research into
how words change behavior is clear: people change their behavior when someone in their
group whom they know and trust adopts the new behavior and recommends it to others”
(Larkin & Larkin, 2005, November, p. 18).
The Network Company uses face-to-face communication in attempts to change
behaviors and reduce uncertainty. Introductions of new employees are usually made at
one of the three meetings during the week, assuring that the newcomer feels welcome,
and the rest of the staff is aware of the new addition to the team, “expedit[ing] any future
interactions immeasurably” (Salsbury & Ritter, 1987, September/October, p. 15). Also,
all large announcements are usually made at the Monday meetings, ensuring that most (if
not all) of the employees are together and able to ask questions and provide feedback
when faced with an important piece of news.
18
In terms of changing behavior, the head of IT usually shares a tip or new website
that he thinks employees might like to use at the aforementioned Monday meetings. This
piece of advice from the trusted technology expert will often save employees time,
helping them do their jobs better, while increasing the overall profitability of the
company. Finally, The Network Company also does an effective job of using face-to-face
meetings to facilitate brainstorming, which “is almost impossible to accomplish with one-
way forms of communication” (Salsbury & Ritter, 1987, September/October, p. 15).
The downside of the three formal meetings each week is that they take employees
away from their client work, which provides the company with much needed billable
hours. Since the meetings act as social interactions along with serving a purpose for the
company employees can feel pressured to attend when perhaps their time could be better
spent on client work.
The Network Company is able to incorporate these weekly formal meetings with
other employee relations delivery tools. For employees who miss either of the Monday
meetings, the PowerPoint slides are posted after the meeting on the company server,
allowing employees to access and review them at their leisure. The Monday morning
meeting is also tied to the company’s intranet site through a competition with a $100
reward. One employee is chosen each week to verbally respond to a series of question,
the answers to which can be found on the intranet before the meeting. This is an
extension of the face-to-face interactions within the agency, and also enhances the
visibility of the company’s intranet, helping the company market the portal as well as
providing incentive for employees to migrate online, ensuring that the company is
19
communicating with employees through more than one medium (Greengard, 2002,
April).
Company Newsletter
The second employee communications vehicle we will be examining is the
company newsletter. Newsletters can serve as a powerful tool for reinforcing messages a
company sends to its target audiences. According to Sonsin “unlike messages
communicated through meetings, those published in newsletters are controlled and
cannot be altered…therefore they allow management to disseminate accurate, timely
information that dispels rumors and instills confidence in employees” (Sonsin, 1996,
June, p. 106). Newsletters can also be utilized to educate employees and enforce a
company’s brand internally. According to Grates “the majority of employees still
consider newsletters and other printed publications to be among the most reliable,
accurate and credible sources of information” (Grates, 1999/2000, December/January, p.
28).
There is an abundance of literature that speaks to the effectiveness and best use of
employee-targeted newsletters. When deciding to implement a newsletter of any kind, a
company must first evaluate which delivery method will be used: online or print. Online
newsletters, which The Network Company uses, have an advantage over print because
they are not only cheaper to produce, but can also be updated and distributed quickly
when breaking news occurs. This is especially important when an employee base is
spread across a large geographic area (Sonsin, 1996, June).
20
But, print newsletters have attributes that online communications do not: they are
tangible and portable. “A printed publication is unique: employees can hold it, touch it,
mark it up, pass it around, take it home and refer back to it” (Grates, 1999/2000,
December/January, p. 27). Along with being tangible, a printed publication also allows
for greater comprehension. Larkin and Larkin argue, “when reading from paper,
employees can devote all their mental resources to understanding…on paper the author
controls the navigation: the reader turns the page, reads, then turns another page” (Larkin
& Larkin, 2005, November, p. 17).
The Network Company’s newsletter “Creative Strategies” is published monthly,
and sent via email to the agency’s clients and suppliers as well as influential individuals
within the marketing communications industry. The newsletter features a series of short
articles that pertain to developments within the marketing communications industry (i.e. a
review of Super Bowl ads or information on new media vehicles such as podcasts). It also
contains a section that highlights news from the agency’s clients—an effective client
relations vehicle. The newsletter is consistently branded, with a set format and layout that
distinguishes it from other email newsletters.
Currently the newsletter is tailored toward audiences outside the company, and its
purpose is not specifically to serve as an employee communications vehicle. Morris
(1997) examined the effect of external stakeholder management devices (SMDs), which
include on an organization’s internal audiences. Morris argues that
“given that socially responsive organizations establish such formal structures,
processes and procedures in order to address the concerns of external
stakeholders, most SMDs have an external focus...[but] the initial impact of
21
SMDs in an organization must be internal, if they are to constrain the behavior or
organization members” (Morris, 1997, p. 413).
Morris found that stakeholder management devices impact internal audiences’
perception of the company’s moral climate, as well as the outcomes of the company’s
social performance initiatives. Based on these findings, The Network Company should
consider what effect SMDs such as the company newsletter are having on employees
perceptions of the company. Management could then determine how the newsletter could
be augmented to reach employees with messages that reinforce the company’s mission
and core values.
The Network Company could take these efforts a step further by producing a
monthly, bimonthly or quarterly print newsletter specifically for employees. While the
current newsletter (a marketing tool for the agency) may provide employees with some
information about the company vision and current events, it does not specifically speak to
what employees are concerned about. The Network Company’s employee
communications, while robust, do not include any formal statements from upper
management (aside from verbal interactions at meetings) to the employee base. A printed
newsletter would provide an ideal forum for this type of communication, acting as a
reinforcement of messages conveyed through other mediums to employees. The printed
newsletter could then be supplemented with an online version that would cater to the
company’s more technology savvy employees. A newsletter would also reach all
members of the organizational network, whether or not those individuals were able to
attend meetings where news was shared with employees.
22
Intranet
The medium that The Network Company uses to reinforce company messages
and communicate with employees is the company intranet. An intranet “uses the
infrastructure and standards of the Internet and the World Wide Web, but is accessible
only to people within the organization” (Chung, 2003, January/February, p. 6). If
developed correctly, intranets can serve as extremely valuable tools for employees,
increasing communication among all members of the network, because “as a single
interface to a variety of information sources, the browser is cost-effective, highly
efficient, and very easy to use” (Chung, 2003, January/February, p. 5).
Above all, an intranet must be user friendly. “An intranet is an exercise in user-
centered design, so the first step is to identify employees’ needs” (Intranets, 2004,
November, p. 2). In most cases those needs center on easily accessing bits of information
that employees need to do their jobs better. Larkin and Larkin argue that in most cases an
intranet is not the best vehicle for disseminating longer information that needs to be
absorbed: “the Web’s strength is its search capability, not ease of comprehension…the
Web is at it’s best when employees can use it to locate small pieces of data buried in big
data sets” (Larkin & Larkin, 2005, November, p. 17).
The Network Company uses a pre-made template provided by Web Office, an
intranet design company, for its intranet site. Employees are given a login and password
and are then directed to the intranet home-page. The home-page includes a navigation bar
on the left side of the page with links to discussion pages, documents, databases,
members, tasks and a calendar. Most of this information is also included on the main part
23
of the home-page, along with local weather and announcements. The site is intuitive,
since most information an employee may be seeking is accessible on the home page.
The home-page also offers some features that PR News considers best practices in
intranet design, like the announcements bar that archives recent announcements so
employees can refer back to them if needed (PR News, 2003, March 10). PR News also
argues that an intranet should easily interface with technology that employees use offline,
a requirement that The Network Company fulfills by allowing users to import their tasks
and calendar items from Outlook (an email and scheduling program) into their home-
page on the intranet. Additionally the home-page is fully customizable for each user,
allowing employees to move information around so that it matches their browsing style
and information needs.
The intranet allows employees to exchange information with one another outside
of normal networks of communication. One of the ways that The Network Company
increases the frequency of this type of communication is through a company message
board that is accessible through the intranet. This message board has an area for general
discussion, an area for employees to post items that might be for sale, and also has pages
for each of the company’s employee run task forces that are responsible for recruitment,
development, the environment, deployment and feedback and collaboration. These
forums allow members of the task forces to continue discussion outside of their formal
meeting times while also allowing non-task force members to comment on new
initiatives. Only 16 of 60 (26 percent) of the company’s employees have made one or
more posts on the discussion boards. In order to increase the interaction of more of the
24
network in this online forum, The Network Company should direct some employee
communications messages towards encouraging non-users to become active on the
discussion boards.
Network Analysis
Weekly company-wide meetings, the newsletter and intranet are all important
vehicles that The Network Company uses to communicate with its employees. These
vehicles become more powerful tools if the employee communications practitioner is
aware of the company’s organizational and communication networks, and how
information from these vehicles moves within these networks.
25
Figure 1. The Phelps Group’s Team Based Network
Network density is defined as “the degree of connectedness in a network and is
measured by the ratio of the existing links to the total number possible: Density =T/n(n-
1)/2 in which T is the number of ties and N is the number of individuals in the
network…network density is associated with faster diffusion” (Valente, 1995, p. 42). The
26
density of this network is 0.30, meaning that a third of all possible linkages in the
network actually exist.
The central player in the network (see Figure 1) is node number 24, which is a
team that consists members of the company’s administration, such as the receptionist,
information technology officers and members of the accounting department, as well as
the chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer. Due to their
position within the network, effectively holding a place on every team, these individuals
play a crucial role in the dissemination of employee communications messages.
These individuals also have an important role in disseminating employee
communications messages, because in two cases they not only are in a key position to
disseminate these messages, but they are also the originators of the messages. First, while
all employees contribute to the current monthly employee newsletter the executive
assistant to the CEO (who also falls into node 24) is responsible for its compilation and
distribution. Secondly, the VP of technology and the COO (both members of node 24) are
responsible for the content and design of the company’s intranet. By having members of
the most connected team responsible for the creation and dissemination of employee
communications messages, The Network Company is able to streamline the employee
relations function within the company.
The members of node 24 would be considered opinion leaders within The
Network Company. Opinion leaders can spread employee relations information if they
“have extensive interpersonal network links with their followers” (Rogers, 2003, p. 315).
Opinion leaders are essential to the spread of innovations and information within an
27
organization. According to Rogers (Rogers, 2003) scholars commonly use networks only
to identify and utilize opinion leaders to spread information to the rest of the network. For
this reason the presence of node 24 in The Network Company’s network is essential to
the success of employee relations initiatives.
Figure 2. The Phelps Group’s Team-Based Network with Node 24 Removed
We can see that with node 24 removed (Figure 2) the network becomes much
more decentralized. The density of the network also decreases, from 0.30 to 0.22,
28
meaning that there are fewer links between nodes in the network. Nodes 18, 14 and 12
then become the most central nodes, responsible for keeping communication within The
Network Company moving. These teams are some of the largest in the organization, with
members crossing many disciplines, and holding membership on a variety of teams.
Without node 24 a few of the teams, namely node 20, become very isolated from the rest
of the network. Without node 24, this node is left to rely on node 13 for much of its
information, reaffirming the importance of node 24 as a major hub of this network.
Another measure, centralization, allows us to see how much of a variation there is
between how centralized individual teams are within the network. According to Monge
and Contractor “a network is centralized if a few individuals (perhaps, just one) have
considerably higher centrality scores than others in the network...a network is
decentralized if the members in the network have roughly the same centrality scores”
(Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 44). Using UCINet software we computed the
centralization measures for both networks in order to ascertain node 24’s role in
centralizing the network. We found that the network that includes node 24 is 73.52
percent centralized, while the network without this major player is only 30.04 percent
centralized. This measure again confirms the importance of node 24 as a conduit of
communication within the network.
In this network there is also an interesting triad that exists between nodes 14, 15
and 23. Node 14 is one of the larger teams that has members from many disciplines. It
also includes three public relations practitioners that are also members of nodes 15 and
23. These three individuals play an essential role as conveyors of employee messages to
29
the other members of the two more isolated nodes. There is two-way communication
between nodes 15 and 23, meaning that once they receive information from node 14 that
the two teams are likely to discuss it between themselves.
The most central teams in the network (24, 14, 18 and 12) are also the largest in
terms of number. This is due to the fact that “larger organizations [in this case groups]
create proportionally more co-membership ties than smaller ones, of course, because the
number of interpersonal relationships is (n(n-1)/2), where n is the number of members in
the group” (McPherson, et al., 2001, p. 436). Since these groups have more opportunities
to make ties with other groups, due to their number of members, they are also in an
advantageous position to spread employee communications messages.
30
Discussion
The purpose of this research has been to improve best practices in employee
relations within the public relations industry by investigating the relevance of corporate
structure on the dissemination of employee relations materials. While we were unable to
directly study the use of these materials by members of the network, through conducting
a communication audit and mapping the organization’s formal network we are able to
examine both how employee relations materials are utilized by the company, as well as
how messages related to these materials might spread.
Through our communication audit we found that one major group within the
organization controls the creation of employee relations materials within The Network
Company. This group, comprised of people who hold administrative roles, sets the tone
of communication between the organization and its employees. After conducting our
analysis of The Network Company’s we found that not only does this group set the tone
of communication, but it is also the most central group in the network, with ties to all
other teams (node 24). Therefore this group is the central player in the dissemination of
employee relations information, controlling both the messages and the mediums through
which they are conveyed.
We also found that three other groups were central to the communication flow
within the organization. These groups are the largest in terms of number of members, and
serve important roles as disseminators of employee relations information. It also became
apparent that the network had several outlying teams who have little contact with the rest
31
of the organization, meaning that members of those teams are less likely to receive
employee relations messages.
Through our communication audit we were also able to identify crucial meeting
times during each week when members The Network Company’s whole network are able
to interact, allowing for employee relations information to be spread across the
boundaries that exist when working within the more stringent team organization. Along
with these meetings, we were also able to identify a forum where the whole network can
interact virtually, on The Network Company’s intranet.
Implications
These findings can help public relations practitioners improve best practices in
employee relations by showing them the value of taking into account an organization’s
communication structure when designing employee relations programs. Practitioners can
map communication networks and use their findings to see where the originators of
employee relations messages reside within the network. Once this has been determined
they can then examine how the network can be utilized to spread employee relations
messages between teams, reaching both the hubs, and the more isolated teams.
Our research can also encourage employee relations practitioners to select times
when the whole network is together for conveying important employee relations
messages. Face-to-face as well as virtual interaction of the whole network is an important
tool if the practitioner does not want to try to work within the confines of traditional
communication networks.
32
In order to increase the quality of employee relations activities, practitioners can
even take their applications of networks one step further. Once they are able to visualize
and analyze an organization’s network practitioners can attempt to change the network so
that information is able to spread more effectively among all members. According to
Cross and Parker (2004) in order to change a network a manager must initiate
relationships, build trust among all involved, and correct unproductive behaviors within
the network by attempting to eliminate political tension and redundant relationships. This
may be a daunting task, but if a practitioner is able to simultaneously understand, work
within and change a network, employee relations messages can have increased meaning
and relevance to all members of the network.
Limitations and Possibilities for Further Research
The largest limitation of this research is that it examines company-dictated
communication networks (based on the organizational chart) within The Network
Company instead of looking at both formal and informal communication that may exist
outside the constraints of the company structure. To examine communication outside of
the formal structure networks a survey could be developed and distributed to employees
of The Network Company to explore communication networks between employees. This
would allow us to see how informal social networks play an integral part in the
communication within the organization, and how they, along with more formal networks,
could be utilized to spread employee communications messages.
33
Future research might also include distributing a survey that specifically examines
how frequently and through what mediums members of the network send or receive
employee relations information. It would be especially enlightening to examine a
company that includes both corporate and manufacturing employees, looking at how their
communications networks differ and how they utilize some of the same employee
relations vehicles to gather and spread information.
34
Glossary
Betweenness: A measure of how much a specific node stands between other nodes or
groups of nodes, and facilitates communication between these groups.
Bridge: an actor who is a member of two or more groups
Buzz: the word of mouth that spreads about a brand, product, event, person or cause
Clique: a maximally complete subgraph, the people within the clique are all connected to
each other, but not connected to anyone in the larger network environment.
Closeness: A measure of how easily one network node can reach other nodes in the
network quickly, without much work.
Cluster: sets of people who share similarities in some dimension of their lives and, as a
result, who frequently communicate with one another
Communication network: patterns of contact that are created by the flow of messages
among communicators through time and space
Degree: the number of direct links that a node has with other nodes, direction doesn’t
matter
Density: the degree of connectedness in a network and is measured by the ratio of the
existing links to the total number possible. Density =T/n(n-1)/2 in which T is the number
of ties and N is the number of individuals in the network
Distance: the number of links between two nodes
Dyad: a pair of actors and the (possible) tie(s) between them
Expert hub: an individual who has some type of expertise or authority in one specific
area and people trust their opinions because of this expertise
Geodesic: the shortest distance between two points in a network.
Homophily: the principle that contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than
dissimilar people
In-degree: the number of directional links going from other nodes to one specific node.
35
Intranet: a computer portal that uses the infrastructure and standards of the Internet and
the World Wide Web, but is accessible only to people within the organization
N-Clique: the maximum number of individuals in the network who are connected to each
other through no more than n links. N can be any number that will help the researcher
look at the network in a manner that will bring about the most information.
Network connector: an individual who knows people across diverse groups (clusters),
and is able to seamlessly integrate these groups
Node: particular individual within the network
Organizational proximity: two or more people being in the same location where there is
both the opportunity and psychological obligation for face-to-face communication
Out-degree: the number of directional links going from one node to those nodes which it
is connected to.
Positions: looks at where one node is positioned in the network and how that position
will affect what the node is able to do and where it is able to move.
Regular hub: a person who acts as a source of information for other people, in one
specific category
Social hub: does not have any specific knowledge in an area but they are a hub because
of their personality and charisma
Social network: consists of a finite set or sets of actors and the relation or relations
defined on them
Structural equivalence: when two nodes in the network have similar patterns of
interaction with the other members of the network.
Structural holes: The lack of a link between two groups of nodes. Without a link these
groups will never be able to communicate. If a person steps in and fills this hole their
betweenness measure will increase.
Theory of self-categorization: states that people will place themselves into a specific
category depending on their demographic profile, and seek out people within their work
environment who have similar profiles
Triad: a subset of three actors and the (possible) tie(s) among them
36
Bibliography
Barabasi, A.-L. (2002). Linked. New York: Plume.
Best practices: Making intranet PR more than a tech thing. (2003, March 10). PR News,
59(10), 1.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINet for windows: Software
for social network analysis. Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Chung, C. L. K. (2003, January/February). Elements of an effective internal audit intranet
website. Internal Auditing, 18(1), 3-13.
Cross, R., & Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how
work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations (8th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
DeWine, S. (2001). The consultant's craft: Improving organizational communication (2
ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.
Downs, C. W. (1988). Communication audits. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and
Company.
Downs, C. W., & Adrian, A. D. (2004). Assessing organizational communication:
Strategic communication audits. New York: The Guilford Press.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New
York: Little, Brown and Company.
Grates, G. (1999/2000, December/January). Is the employee publication extinct?
Communication World, 17(1), 27-30.
Greengard, S. (2002, April). Five ways to make a more powerful portal. Workforce Costa
Mesa, 81(4), 34-40.
Intranets: What's inside counts. (2004, November). New Media Age, 22.
37
Johnson, J. D. (1992). Approaches to organizational communication structure. Journal of
Business Research, 25, 99-113.
Larkin, T. J. & Larkin, S. (2005, November). Change the communication channel: Web,
paper or face-to-face. Communication World, 22(6), 16-18.
League of American Communications Professionals. (2005). PR tools 2005:
Communications audit guide.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in
social networks. Annual Review of Socioloy, 27, 415-44.
Monge, P. R., Rothman, L. W., Eisenberg, E. M., Miller, K. I., & Kirste, K. K. (1985,
September). The dynamics of organizational proximity. Management Science,
31(9), 1129-41.
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Morris, S. A. (1997). Internal effects of stakeholder management devices. Journal of
Business Ethics, 16, 413-24.
Phelps, J. (2002). Pyramids are tombs. Santa Monica, California: IMC Publishing.
Putnam, L. L., & Cheney, G. (1995). Organizational communication: Historical
development and future directions. In S. R. Corman, S. P. Banks, C. R. Bantz, & M.
E. Mayer (Eds.), Foundations of organizational communication: A reader. (2 ed.,
pp. 10-28). White Plains: Longman Publishers USA.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5 ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rosen, E. (2000). The anatomy of buzz. New York: Currency.
Salsbury, G. B. & Ritter, C. J. (1987, September/October). We've got to stop meeting like
this. Management World, 16(5), 14.
Sonsin, B. (1996, June). Corporate newsletters: Improve employee morale. HR Magazine,
41(6), 106-09.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.
Oxford: Blackwell.
38
Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Cresskill, New
Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, D. J. (2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company.
39

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Community relations and community organizing: Moving corporations from good citizenship to good leadership

PDF

Balancing face-to-face and technology-based communication channels in internal communications

PDF

Cause-related marketing: A look at forming functional social alliances through the coverage of women's magazines

PDF

Case analysis-based key learnings for organizations considering sports marketing as a public relations strategy

PDF

An overview of public relations in Hong Kong and its political, economic and cultural context

PDF

Embedded media: An army field manual for commanders and public affairs officers

PDF

Communications plan for a HIV/AIDS education project

PDF

Strategic communications plan for a public school system

PDF

The executive blog as a communications tool

PDF

Breaking barriers in classical music: A public relations plan for the Music Academy of the West

PDF

Helmets: The safe choice. A study on the benefits of helmet safety while skiing and/or snowboarding: A public relations program to encourage helmet use

PDF

The myth of the unknown child: Creating a new face for adoption in America

PDF

Improving perceptions of the Muslim community in Los Angeles

PDF

Thinking about Alzheimer's disease: A strategic public relations plan for communities across the United States

PDF

The role of public relations in the transition from war to peace: A case study of the Oslo Peace Process

PDF

Public relations for corporate mergers: The AOL Time Warner merger case

PDF

Corporate rumors: Causes, formation, and refutation

PDF

A culture of fear: The Internet and press freedom in Singapore

PDF

From networks to Nickelodeon to Noggin: A communication networks perspective on the evolution of the children's television community

PDF

Healthcare For All: Solving a California epidemic. A public relations plan for HFA foundation

Asset Metadata

Creator Wright, Margot J. (author)

Core Title Employee communications: A network view. The use of network analysis to explore and refine employee communications within team-based organizations

School Graduate School

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag mass communications,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-51103

Unique identifier UC11338099

Identifier 1437578.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-51103 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1437578.pdf

Dmrecord 51103

Document Type Thesis

Rights Wright, Margot J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA