See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/280804909

Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

and Internal Reputation: Effects of Leadership Communication

Article in The Public relations journal · July 2015

CITATIONS READS

77 7,664

1 author:

Linjuan Rita Men

University of Florida
118 PUBLICATIONS 6,902 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Linjuan Rita Men on 09 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization
Relationships and Internal Reputation: Effects of Leadership
Communication
Linjuan Rita Men, Ph.D., APR

ABSTRACT

The current study examines employee engagement as an outcome of internal public

relations. Specifically, it tests the how employee engagement is associated with
other outcome variables of employee–organization relationships and internal
reputation and how it is driven by organizational contextual factors of authentic
leadership and transparent communication. Through an online quantitative survey of
400 employees who work for various medium-sized and large corporations in the
United States, the study found that employee engagement is positively influenced by
quality employee–organization relationships (i.e., employee trust, control mutuality,
commitment, and satisfaction) and positive internal reputation. As an antecedent,
authentic leadership critically affects the nurturing of an organization’s transparent
communication and positive employee relational outcomes, which, in turn, enhance
reputation and thus employee engagement. Significant theoretical and practical
implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords: employee engagement, employee-organization relationships, internal

reputation, authentic leadership, transparent communication

In the search for indicators of the effectiveness of public relations, two major
concepts, namely, organization–public relationships and organizational reputation
(Yang, 2007), have emerged and gained attention from both scholars and
professionals. Recently, an engagement approach has been developed to showcase
the value of public relations among public relations professionals. Edelman (2008)
asserted that the next generation of public relations is public engagement. Beyond
enhancing reputation and relationships, public relations should engage stakeholders
of all types to encourage mutually satisfactory dialogue and participation with the
organization (Edelman, 2008).

However, in contrast to the prevalent discussions in professional literature, academic

research on engagement in public relations remains sparse. Little is known about
how engagement is defined in relation to organization–public relationships and
reputation and whether it is merely an old concept that has been repackaged.
Therefore, the present study serves to examine engagement as an outcome of
public relations. Specifically, the study argues that the value of public relations lies
not only in cultivating quality relationships with the publics and building a favorable
organizational reputation but also in engaging the public in conversation,
collaboration, participation, and involvement. To delimit the scope of research, this
To cite this article
Men, L. R. (2015). Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships and Internal Reputation: Effects
of Leadership Communication. Public Relations Journal, 9(2). Available online:
[Link]
Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

study takes an internal perspective and focuses on employee engagement.

Professional and academic literature on business and communication has
acknowledged that employee engagement leads to organizational growth, profit, and
productivity (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002) as well as organizational citizenship
behavior and customer satisfaction (May et al., 2004; Saks, 2006). A growing body
of literature has suggested factors that could possibly drive employee engagement,
which include leadership, communication, supervisor relationship, and work
environment (Ketchum, 2010; Parsley, 2006; Robinson et al., 2004; Saks, 2006).
However, empirical studies testing how such factors exactly influence employee
engagement remain sparse. Therefore, a secondary purpose of this study is to
explore how two crucial organizational contextual factors, namely, authentic
leadership and transparent communication contribute to employee engagement. The
findings of the study will advance the growing body of literature on engagement,
leadership, and organizational internal communication and help organizations better
practices in internal communication and effectively engage employees. Additionally,
the findings will encourage organizations to develop authentic leadership and
transparency, which will contribute to the success of the organization.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Definition of Engagement

Engagement as an outcome was first defined by ethnographic researcher Kahn

(1990) as “the harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles” (p.
694). Rothbard (2001) defined engagement as a psychological state composed of
attention, which refers to “cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends
thinking about a role,” and absorption, which refers to “being engrossed in a role
and…to the intensity of one’s focus on a role” (p. 656). Engagement is characterized
by energy, involvement, efficacy, vigor, dedication, and a positive state, as opposed
to cynicism and inefficacy (Saks, 2006). Beyond the psychological aspect, Haven et
al. (2007) defined engagement as “the level of involvement, interaction, intimacy,
and influence an individual has with a brand over time…a person’s participation with
a brand, regardless of channel, where they call the shots” (p. 5). Similarly, Macey
and Schneider (2008) defined engagement in three levels: trait engagement
(disposition and cognition), physiological state engagement (affection and emotions),
and behavioral engagement (behaviors). Literature across disciplines lacks
congruence in defining engagement. What is common to these definitions is the
active use of cognition, emotions, and behaviors in engagement. From a public
relations perspective, Kang (2010) defined public engagement as “a psychologically
motivated state that is characterized by affective commitment, positive affectivity and
empowerment that individual public experiences in interactions with an organization
over time that result in motivated behavioral outcomes” (p.11).

The current study agrees with Kang that engagement is a positive and active
psychological state that is behavior-oriented and pertains to the feeling of being in
control, but a conceptual difference exists between organizational commitment and
engagement. Robinson et al. (2004) also had similar notions, stating that “neither
commitment nor OCB [organizational citizenship behavior] reflect sufficiently two
aspects of engagement—its two-way nature, and the extent to which engaged
employees are expected to have an element of business awareness” (p. 8).

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Organizational commitment reflects the public’s attitudes toward and attachment to

the organization; however, engagement is not an attitude but the level of
attentiveness and absorption in role performance (Saks, 2006). Similarly,
engagement is distinct from involvement. May et al. (2004) suggested that the
difference between engagement and involvement is that “engagement may be
thought of as an antecedent to job involvement in that individuals who experience
deep engagement in their roles should come to identify with their jobs” (p. 12).
Therefore, engagement is positioned between attitudes toward the organization (i.e.,
trust, satisfaction, and commitment) and positive and supportive behaviors, such as
involvement, organizational citizenship behavior, and supportive communication
behavior (Kim & Rhee, 2011).

Employee engagement is defined in the current study as the employees’ level of

positive affectivity, which is characterized by attention, absorption, dedication,
participation, vigor, enthusiasm, excitement, and pride in occupying and performing
an organizational role (Saks, 2006); and their level of physiological empowerment,
which is characterized by their sense of competence or self-efficacy, control,
autonomy, meaningfulness, and influence (Kang, 2010). Positive affectivity echoes
existing definitions of employee engagement and thus represents a central
component of the engagement construct (Kang, 2010). Employee empowerment has
been extensively examined in the management and leadership arena as a
leadership behavior and related outcome in terms of power delegation and the
sharing of decision-making control. Employee empowerment is defined in the
present study as employees’ perceived capability to exert a certain level of control
over situations and the environment in the organization, a fulfillment of “innate
psychological needs such as competence, autonomy, and relatedness” as a part of
engagement (Kang, 2010, p. 16).

Employee–Organization Relationships

Relationships developed between organizations and their strategic publics have

been extensively examined as a major outcome of public relations in various
contexts, including in corporate, non-profit, government, global, and online settings
(e.g., Bruning, Castle, & Schrepfer, 2003; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; J. Grunig &
Huang, 2000; L. Grunig et al., 2002; Hon & J. Grunig, 1999; Hung, 2006; Kim, 2007;
Ni & Wang, 2011; Seltzer & Zhang, 2011). Broom, Casey, and Richey (2000) defined
organization-public relationships as “the patterns of interaction, transaction,
exchange, and linkage between an organization and its publics” (p. 18). Hon and J.
Grunig (1999) and Huang (2001) noted that the quality of organization–public
relationships is indicated by public trust, control mutuality, commitment, and
satisfaction. From an internal perspective, the current study focuses on the quality of
employee-organization relationships. Quality relationships that organizations have
with their employees not only contribute to organizational performance and
achievement of organizational goals, but also help build and protect organizational
reputation and image in a turbulent environment (Kim & Rhee, 2011; Men, 2011). As
pointed out by Kim and Rhee (2011), if employees have experienced good long-term
relationships with their organization, “they are likely to consider organizational
problems as their own, and are thus likely to forward and share supportive
information for their organization during the organizational turbulence.” As in Hon

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

and J. Grunig (1999) and Kim and Rhee (2011), employee–organization relationship
is defined in this study as the degree to which an organization and its employees
trust one another, agree on who has the rightful power to influence, experience
satisfaction with one another, and commit themselves to the other.

Internal Reputation

Reputation has been defined from various perspectives, including as a collective

assessment by multiple stakeholders regarding the company’s ability to fulfill their
expectations (Fombrun, Garberg, & Sever, 2000); stakeholders’ overall evaluation of
a company over time based on their direct experiences with the company and
through other forms of communication (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001); a collective system of
subjective beliefs among the members of a social group (Bromley, 2000); a cognitive
representation in stakeholders about an organization’s past behaviors and related
attributes (Coombs, 2000); “observers’ collective judgments of a corporation based
on assessments of the financial, social, and environmental impacts attributed to the
corporation over time” (Barnett, Jermier & Lafferty, 2006, p. 34); and the historical
relationship between the organization and its public (Stacks & Watson, 2007, p. 69).
Barnett, Jermier, and Lafferty (2006) reviewed 49 definitions of reputation and
summarized these definitions into three clusters of meaning: a state of awareness,
an assessment or evaluation, and an asset. Reputation as a state of awareness
centers on reputation as the attention given by a stakeholder to an organization (i.e.,
stakeholders are generally aware but lack judgment about the organization);
reputation as an assessment involves judgment and evaluation; and reputation as an
asset emphasizes reputation as a value closely associated with the consequences of
an organization. Fombrun et al. (2000) suggested that different stakeholders may
perceive a company’s reputation differently and that a good reputation starts from
within the company. The current study focuses on employee perception and thus
defines internal reputation as employees’ overall evaluation of the organization
based on their direct experiences with the company and all forms of communication.

Establishing Linkage between Employee–Organization Relationships, Internal

Reputation, and Employee Engagement

Public relations scholars (e.g., Coombs, 2000; Coombs & Holladay, 2001; L. Grunig
et al., 2002; Yang, 2007; Yang & J. Grunig, 2005) have demonstrated the positive
influence of organization–public relationships on organizational reputation. Coombs
and Holladay (2001) observed that a negative relationship history negatively affects
organizational reputation and crisis responsibility. Yang and J. Grunig (2005) also
found that relational outcomes strongly and positively affect organizational reputation
and the overall evaluation of organizational performance. Similarly, the present study
predicts that employees in a stable and good relationship with the organization
evaluate organizational reputation favorably. Organizational reputation is a critical
factor for employee engagement (Parsley, 2006). A favorable internal reputation
reinforces employee identification with the mission, vision, values, beliefs, and
objectives of the company and fuel employee loyalty, motivation, and engagement
(Fombrun & van Riel, 2004). In addition, Kang (2010) found that people who
demonstrate great trust and satisfaction in the organization are highly engaged in the
organization. Similarly, the current study hypothesizes the direct influence of
employee–organization relationships on employee engagement. When employees

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

trust the organization, feel satisfied and committed, and agree on mutual control,
they feel empowered and are willing to engage and participate.

Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: The quality of employee–organization relationships positively

influences employee perception of organizational reputation.

H2: Employee perception of organizational reputation positively

influences employee engagement.

H3: The quality of employee–organization relationships positively

influences employee engagement.

Authentic Leadership

A secondary purpose of this study was to examine how an organizational leadership

factor, in particular, authentic leadership, and transparent internal communication
drives employee outcomes. Luthans and Avolio (2003) defined authentic leadership
as “a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly
developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and
self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering
positive self-development” (p. 243). Authentic leaders are deeply aware of their
values, beliefs, personal characteristics, emotions, and abilities. These leaders
clearly know who they are and what they believe in; thus, they remain “true” to
themselves. In addition, authentic leadership has an ethical foundation. Such
leadership incorporates a positive moral perspective that guides decision making
and behaviors, such as honesty, altruism, kindness, fairness, accountability, and
optimism (Yukl, 2006).

Walumbwa et al. (2008) operationally defined authentic leadership (e.g., Cooper,

Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005; Illes, Moreson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Luthans & Avolio,
2003; May et al., 2003) in terms of four dimensions: self-awareness, relational
transparency, balanced processing, and internalized moral perspective. Self-
awareness refers to leaders’ understanding of how they interpret the world, their
strengths and weaknesses, and the multifaceted nature of the self. Relational
transparency refers to the presentation of one’s authentic self to others, including
behaviors of disclosure, open sharing of information, and expressions of one’s true
thoughts and feelings. Balanced processing refers to leaders’ objective analysis of all
relevant data before they come to a decision. Such leaders also solicit views that
may challenge their deeply held positions. Finally, internalized moral perspective
refers to internalized and integrated self-regulation guided by internal moral values.
Leaders with internalized moral standards act in accord with their values,
preferences, and needs versus group, organizational, and societal pressures or to
please others (Illes et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Effects of authentic leadership. Previous literature has identified various positive

outcomes of authentic leadership, including trust (e.g., Wong & Cummings, 2009),
organizational commitment (e.g., Jensen & Luthans, 2006; Walumbwa et al., 2008),
employee engagement (e.g., Walumbwa et al., 2010), happiness at work (Jensen &

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Luthans, 2006), organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Walumbwa et al., 2010),

identification with leaders (Walumbwa et al., 2010), and employee job performance
(Walumbwa et al., 2008; Wong & Cummings, 2009). Authentic leaders act in a way
that matches their words, which accord with their fundamental and deeply rooted
shared values with the organization and their high moral standards. Consistency
between the words and behaviors of leaders directly affects credibility, employee
trust, and commitment (Berger, 2008). Additionally, authentic leaders solicit views
from followers and utilize these inputs in making decisions. These leaders share
information openly, fairly, and transparently with employees and seek to build quality
relationships with them (Men & Stacks, 2014). High levels of disclosure,
transparency, two-way communication, and relationship orientation, which
characterize authentic leadership, develop a positive environment where employees
feel trusted, supported, and involved. Thus, employee trust, satisfaction, commitment,
and positive feelings are boosted, and employees feel highly engaged. Therefore,

H4: Authentic leadership positively influences the quality of

employee–organization relationships, which in turn, influences
internal reputation and employee engagement.

Transparent Communication

According to Rawlins (2009), transparency includes three analytically distinct

aspects: substantial information, participation, and accountability. First, the
informational aspect (i.e., disclosure) requires organizations to “make available
publicly all legally releasable information—whether positive or negative in nature—in
a manner which is accurate, timely, balanced, and unequivocal” (Heise, 1985, p. 209,
cited in Rawlins, 2009). In addition, disclosed information should be truthful and
substantially complete. According to Rawlins, substantial completeness is concerned
with the needs of the receiver rather than the sender. Therefore, “the key to
obtaining substantial completeness is knowing what your audiences need to know”
(p. 74). Second, the participation aspect of transparency refers to stakeholder
involvement in identifying the information required in decision-making. Organizations
are required to incorporate stakeholders’ opinions to determine what information they
really need, how much information they need, how well the organization fulfills their
information need, and how transparent the organization is (Rawlins, 2009). Third,
transparency also involves accountability. To be transparent, an organization must
be accountable for its words, actions, and decisions, which are normally readily seen
and judged by the public.

Authentic leadership and transparent communication. Leaders (i.e., managers)

are often perceived as preferred and credible sources of information by employees
as they interact with followers on a daily basis (Larkin & Larkin, 1994; Men, 2011).
Therefore, leader behaviors shape organizations’ communication culture and climate
(Men & Stacks, 2013). As previously noted, authentic leaders behave according to
their values and strive to achieve openness and truthfulness in their relationships
with their followers. Such authenticity is often accompanied by open communication,
disclosure, and expressions of one’s genuine thoughts and feelings (Walumbwa et
al., 2008, 2010). To establish enduring relationships with followers, authentic leaders
truly care about employees’ feelings and constantly invite their participation to gather
feedback (Walumbwa et al., 2010). In addition, authentic leaders objectively process

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

information and stay true to whom they are, what they say, and how they act.
Supporting an open and fair work environment for employees, authentic leaders also
demonstrate transparent decision-making (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Walumbwa,
Luthans, Avey, & Oke, 2011). Therefore, by advocating openness, consistency,
truthfulness, and accountability, authentic leadership reflects the essence of
organizational transparency.

H5: Authentic leadership positively influences an organization’s

transparent communication.

Effects of transparent communication. Organizational transparency in every

aspect of corporate communication is critical to building and restoring trust (Rawlins,
2008, 2009). Jahansoozi (2006) argued that organizational transparency is a
relational condition that promotes accountability, collaboration, cooperation, and
commitment. As discussed previously, transparent organizations disclose truthful,
accurate, timely, balanced, and substantial information and invite employee
participation in identifying the information they need and how much information they
want, thereby increasing employees’ influence on the decision-making process.
Such informational and participatory transparency is predicted to lead to employee
satisfaction and feelings of shared control, which constitute a quality employee–
organization relationship. Fombrun and van Riel (2004) also argued that the more
transparent a company is perceived to be, the more likely stakeholders rely on its
disclosures and have confidence in the company’s prospects. Employees that
develop positive attitudes toward the organization evaluate the organization
positively (Yang, 2007), feel a sense of ownership in the success of the organization,
and feel highly engaged (Linhart, 2011)

H6: Transparent communication positively influences the quality of

employee–organization relationships, which in turn, influences
internal reputation and employee engagement.

METHODOLOGY

An online quantitative survey was conducted to test the hypotheses. The population
of the study comprised employees occupying different positions in medium-sized and
large corporations in the United States. Rather than participant corporations,
individual employees who work for various medium-sized and large corporations
were recruited by a sampling firm. The sampling firm solicited participation from its
research panel members of 1.5 million in the United States through its patented
online sampling platform. Qualified potential participants were directed to the online
survey hosted by the researcher. Stratified and quota random sampling strategies
were used to obtain a representative sample with comparable age groups, gender,
and corporation sizes across various income and education levels. A final sample
size of 402 was achieved. The sample was 45.6% male and 54.4% female, with an
average age of 44 years. Non-management employees constituted 59.2% of the
sample, whereas management employees constituted 40.8%. Approximately 55% of
the respondents held at least a bachelor’s degree. The respondents were employees
with average company tenure of 10 years from various corporations.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Measures

Measures of key concepts in the current study were adapted from previous literature
(Fombrun et al., 2000, 2004; Hon & J. Grunig, 1999; Saks, 2006; Kang, 2010; Neider
& Schriesheim, 2011; Rawlins, 2008; 2009). The scale used for closed questions
was a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
The measure of authentic leadership was derived from the Authentic Leadership
Inventory developed by Neider and Schriesheim (2011). Fourteen items were used
to evaluate the authentic leadership aspects of self-awareness (e.g., “My manager
describes accurately the way others view his/her abilities,” α = .87), relational
transparency (e.g., “My manager clearly states what he/she means,” α = .89),
internalized moral perspective (e.g., “My manager is guided in his/her actions by
internal moral standards,” α = .89), and balanced processing (e.g., “My manager
objectively analyzes relevant data before making a decision,” α = .90). Further, the
present study adapted the operationalization of organization transparency by
Rawlins (2008, 2009) and examined three dimensions that characterize transparent
communication, namely, participation (e.g., “The company involves people like me to
help identify the information I need,” α = .92), substantial information (e.g., “The
company provides information in a timely fashion to people like me,” α = .88), and
accountability (e.g., “The company is forthcoming with information that might be
damaging to the organization,” α = .89) with 18 items. To assess the quality of the
relationship between the organization and its employees, the study used a widely
adapted instrument developed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). The instrument includes
20 items that examine four sub-constructs: employee trust (e.g., “This company can
be relied on to keep its promises,” α = .89), control mutuality (e.g., “This company
and I are attentive to what the other says,” α = .93), commitment (e.g., “I feel that this
company is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to me,” α = .91), and
satisfaction (e.g., “I enjoy dealing with this company,” α = .96). Additionally, to
assess organizational reputation as perceived by employees, this study adopted the
Harris–Fombrun Corporate Reputation Quotient (Fombrun et al., 2000, 2004), which
is “a valid, reliable, and robust tool for measuring corporate reputation” (Gardberg &
Fombrun, 2002, α = .95). Finally, 12 items adapted from Saks (2006) and Kang
(2010) were used to measure two dimensions of employee engagement: positive
employee affectivity (“I am proud of this company,” α = .95) and level of
psychological empowerment (“I believe I can make a difference in what happens in
this company,” α = .92).

Data Reduction and Analysis

Before major data analysis, the data were proofread and checked to assess
univariate normality and to identify obvious univariate and multivariate outliers. The
proposed model and all hypotheses were tested with structural equation modeling
(SEM) software AMOS 19.0. Multiple criteria were used to evaluate the goodness of
model fit. These criteria included the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR), a minimal set of fit indices that should be reported and interpreted
in reporting the results of SEM analyses (Kline, 2005).

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

RESULTS

A series of t-tests, ANOVAs, and MANOVAs were conducted to examine the

possible influence of demographic variables, such as respondent age, gender,
education level, income level, industry type, company tenure, and position level, on
the examined variables. Male respondents reported values significantly higher than
those of females with regard to the aspects of control mutuality [t (400) = 2.56, p
= .01], empowerment [t (400) = 3.41, p = .001], and engagement level [t (400) = 2.76,
p = .006]. Employees from medium-sized organizations were overall more engaged
than those from large corporations [F (7, 394) = 2.57, p = .013, R2 = .027]. High-
income employees were generally more engaged than low-income employees [F (10,
391) = 2.19, p = .018, R squared = .029]. Management generally reported higher
values with regard to companies’ transparent communication [t (400) = 3.75, p
< .001), the quality of employee–organization relationships [t (400) = 3.69, p < .001]
and engagement level [t (400) = 6.12, p < .001] than non-management employees.
High-level leaders were also more likely to demonstrate an authentic leadership style
[F (3, 398) = 5.77, p = .001] than low-level leaders.1

SEM Analysis

The analysis and interpretation of the proposed model was a two-stage process: (1)
assessment of the construct validity of the measurement model by confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) and (2) assessment of the structural model. The maximum
likelihood method was employed for model estimation.

The test results of the initial measurement model indicated marginal fit with the data:
2 (68) = 422.46, p < .001, 2/df = 6.21, RMSEA = .10 (90% confidence interval [CI]
= .09 to .11), SRMR = .06, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .93, and CFI = .94. The
model was then modified accordingly. Byrne (2010, p. 111) argued that “forcing large
error terms to be uncorrelated is rarely appropriate with real data.” Allowing error
covariance within the same construct can also explain content redundancy.
According to this line of thinking and based on model modification indices, three
error covariances were added.2 This modification significantly improved data–model
fit (Δχ2 = 139.60, Δdf = 4, p < .001), and the modified model demonstrated good fit
with the data: 2 (65) = 310.78, p < .001, 2/df = 4.78, RMSEA = .08 (90% CI = .08
to .10), SRMR = .04, TLI = .95, and CFI = .96. Thus, the modified model was
retained as the final CFA model. The standardized factor loadings between latent
variables and their indicators ranged from .80 to .97, suggesting that the
hypothesized measurement model demonstrated the desired construct validity
(Table 1).

1
Because the demographic variables only slightly affected the variables in the hypothesized model, they were excluded from
the SEM model testing for model brevity.
2
The error covariance between “control mutuality” and “psychological empowerment” was .43, that between “trust” and “control
mutuality” was .19, and that between “commitment” and “satisfaction” was .25.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Table 1. Standardized Coefficient of Measurement Indicators in the Final CFA

Model (n=402)
Latent Variable Indicator Variable Std. Loading α
Authentic leadership Self-awareness .88 .96
Relational transparency .88
Internalized moral .86
perspective
Balanced processing .89
Transparent Substantial information .89 .97
communication
Participation .92
Accountability .90
Relationship Trust .91 .97
Control mutuality .87
Commitment .90
Satisfaction .92
Engagement Positive affectivity .97 .96
Empowerment .81
Note. N= 402, CFA model fit indices: 2 (65) = 310.78, p < .001, 2/df = 4.78, RMSEA
= .08 (90% CI = .08– .10), SRMR = .04, TLI = .95, and CFI = .96. All standardized
factor loadings are significant at p< .001.

The multivariate normality assumption of SEM was evaluated in AMOS before the
hypothesized model was estimated. Sample data showed significant positive
multivariate kurtosis. Therefore, bootstrapping (N = 2000 samples) was performed to
address the multivariate non-normality of the data. The bootstrap parameter
estimations did not deviate from those based on normal theory, indicating that the
significant results in Figure 1 remained significant in the bootstrapping process and
the non-significant results remained non-significant. The hypothesized structural
model demonstrates satisfactory fit to the data: 2 (69) = 316.78, p < .001, 2/df =
4.59, RMSEA = .08 (.07 to .10), SRMR = .04, TLI = .95, and CFI = .96. Five
structural paths demonstrated significant results at the p < .001 level, and one
structural path was significant at the p < .05 level.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Figure 1. Results of the hypothesized model. Coefficients are standardized

regression weights. For the sake of brevity, only the path model is demonstrated.
The CFA model pattern coefficients, error terms of indicators, and disturbances of
endogenous variables were omitted from the figure. *** p<.001, * p<.05.

Test of Hypotheses

The study proposed six hypotheses, which were fully supported by the data. The
results of each hypothesis testing are presented as follows.

Figure 1 shows that employee–organization relational outcomes demonstrated

strong positive effects on perceived organizational reputation (β = .88, p < .001) and
employee engagement (β = .75, p < .001).3 Quality employee–organization
relationships nurture employees’ favorable perception of the organization and boost
employee engagement, thus supporting hypotheses 1 and 3. The organizational
reputation perceived by employees demonstrated a moderate positive effect on
employee engagement (β = .15, p < .05). Employees that perceive their organization
to have a favorable reputation are highly engaged, thus supporting hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 4 proposed the positive effects of authentic leadership on the quality of

employee–organization relationships with regard to employee perception of
organizational reputation and employee engagement. As expected, authentic
leadership demonstrated a medium positive effect on the quality of employee–
organization relationships (β = .20, p < .001). The indirect effects of authentic
leadership on perceived reputation and engagement were tested by a bootstrap
procedure (N = 2000 samples). The indirect effects of authentic leadership on
perceived organizational reputation via transparent communication and employee–
organization relationships [β = .66, p = .001 (95% CI: .61 to .71)] and those on
employee engagement via transparent communication, employee–organization
relationships, and perceived reputation [β = .67, p = .001 (95% CI: .61 to.72)] were
both significant.

3
According to the rule of thumb proposed by Keith (2006), a standardized coefficient (β) of less than .05 suggests a negligible
effect, that of .05 to .10 suggests a small but meaningful effect, that of .10 to .25 represents a moderate effect, and that
above .25 represents a strong effect.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Results also supported hypothesis 5. Authentic leadership demonstrated a strong

positive effect on transparent communication (β = .73, p < .001), implying that
organizational leadership significantly affects the formation of the organization’s
communication system. Finally, transparent communication demonstrated a strong
positive effect on the quality of employee–organization relationships (β = .75, p
< .001), supporting hypothesis 6. Additionally, the indirect effects of transparent
communication on perceived organizational reputation via employee–organization
relationships [β = .71, p = .001 (95% CI: .65 to .81)] and those on employee
engagement via employee–organization relationships and perceived organizational
reputation [β = .67, p = .001 (95% CI: .60 to .75)] were both significant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to examine the relations between
organization–public relationships, organizational reputation, and public engagement
from the internal public’s perspective and to propose an integrated approach that
demonstrates the value of public relations and (2) to investigate the influence of
authentic leadership and transparent communication on employee engagement.
Results provided important implications for scholars and professionals of public
relations and organizational communication.

Linkage between Employee–Organization Relationships, Perceived

Organizational Reputation, and Employee Engagement

Over the past decade, public relations scholars and professionals have developed a
set of criteria that demonstrate the value of public relations to the organization’s C-
suite and evaluate its effectiveness. Several scholars assert that the value of public
relations primarily lies in developing long-term and mutually beneficial relationships
between the organization and its strategic public (e.g., Bruning & Ledingham, 1999;
Hon & J. Grunig, 1999; Hung, 2006; J. Grunig & Huang, 2000). Other scholars favor
the concept of organizational reputation to showcase the contribution of public
relations to organizational effectiveness (Murray & White, 2005; Hong & Yang, 2009,
2011; Hutton, 1999; Hutton et al., 2001). Industry leaders and public relations
theorists have suggested public engagement as a paradigm by which to examine the
practice of public relations (e.g., Edelman, 2008; Kang, 2010). Recognizing existing
divergent approaches to evaluating public relations effectiveness, several scholars
(e.g., Stacks et al., 2011; Yang, 2005, 2007) have suggested an integrated approach
to measure the value of public relations. For example, Stacks (2011) theorized that
organization–public relationships, reputation, trust, credibility, and confidence are
interrelated public relations outcomes that jointly affect the return on stakeholders’
expectation and companies’ return on investment. Yang (2005, 2007) proposes that
the concepts of relationships and reputation can be intertwined in conceptualizing
the value of public relations.

Similarly, the current study suggests that an integrated approach of relationships,

reputation, and engagement can describe a larger picture of the value of public
relations than an approach that focuses only on one of these concepts. Results
revealed significant positive associations between these three concepts. In particular,
a favorable perception of organizational reputation by employees can be obtained by
cultivating a quality relationship with employees. This finding supports the notion of

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

previous scholars that the relationship history (Coombs & Holladay, 2001) and
relationship quality (Yang, 2005, 2007) of an organization with its stakeholders affect
the evaluation of organizational reputation by stakeholders. Additionally, a quality
employee–organization relationship contributes to employee engagement. Thus,
employees that enjoy a quality relationship with the organization reciprocate with
active participation and involvement in organizational activities. Engaged employees
are attentive, absorbed, and dedicated to their work. These employees also feel a
sense of belongingness to the organization and feel highly empowered. This finding
echoes Kang’s (2010) observation that public trust and satisfaction in the
organization, which are important outcomes of quality organization-public
relationships, enhance public engagement.

Consistent with Men’s (2011) study on the relationship between reputation and
engagement, the present study found a significant medium effect of perceived
organizational reputation on employee engagement. When employees think
positively of their company, particularly when they believe that the company has
strong prospects, a clear vision, promising leadership, and a fair and hospitable work
environment, they are likely to engage themselves in the organization. This finding
indicates the connection between cognitive perception (reputation) and psychosocial
and behavioral reaction (engagement). Similarly, this finding provides empirical
evidence for Parsley’s (2006) argument that managing organizational reputation is
critical for employee engagement because a bad reputation may cause employees
to distance themselves from the business. Therefore, the three communication
outcomes, namely, relationship, reputation, and engagement, were closely related in
a causal manner and cannot be empirically isolated from one another.

Transparent Communication and Employee Outcomes

The results of this study indicated that transparent communication critically affects
the building of a quality relationship with employees. In particular, organizations that
share substantial information with employees, encourage employee participation,
convey balanced information that holds leaders accountable, and are open to
employee scrutiny are likely to gain employee trust, satisfaction, commitment, and
control mutuality. This finding was expected because open and transparent
communication encourages employees to voice their opinions (Rawlins, 2008, 2009).
The organization’s confidence, trust, and care for employees provide employees with
a sense of ownership over the organization. Thus, a quality relationship can be
developed over time and lead to a favorable evaluation of employees on the
organization’s reputation as well as employee engagement. Contrary to the
expectation, transparent communication did not directly and significantly influence
employee engagement. Such effects were fully mediated by employee–organization
relationships and internal reputation. Linhart (2011) argued that transparency is the
foundation for building engagement. As shown in this study, as a form of
psychological attachment, positivity, and supportive behavioral orientation, employee
engagement directly results from relational outcomes. Thus, by nurturing quality
employee–organization relationships, transparent communication indirectly drives
employee engagement.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Authentic Leadership and Employee Outcomes

This study revealed the significant medium effect of authentic leadership on

employee–organization relationships. Employees perceive a better relationship with
the organization when they perceive their managers to be authentic, ethical,
balanced, fair, transparent, and consistent in what they say and do. This finding can
be attributed to the consistency (between values and deeds) and relational
transparency demonstrated by authentic leaders. These qualities directly affect
employee trust and commitment (Berger, 2008). The finding may also be explained
by the orientation of authentic leadership toward enduring relationships. Therefore,
given the natural link between organizational management and the organization
(Men, 2011), trust in leaders or a quality leader–follower relationship can improve
employee–organization relationships. Although several studies have demonstrated
the significant effects of authentic leadership on employee work engagement
(Walumbwa et al., 2010), these effects are often mediated by factors such as
employee–organization relationships, internal reputation, and transparent
communication as revealed in this study. In other words, authentic leadership
provides a benign context that shapes the organization’s transparent communication
system and builds quality employee–organization relationships. By fostering
employee trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction, authentic leadership
ultimately drives employee engagement.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The findings of the study provide important theoretical and practical implications for
public relations, organizational communication, and management. In terms of theory,
by building a causal link between relationships, reputation, and engagement from the
internal public’s perspective, the study suggests that public relations outcomes are
closely associated with one another and that an integrated approach provides a
complete and realistic picture of the value of public relations compared with a
divergent approach. Moreover, the current study also fills the research gap in public
engagement from an internal communication perspective. Public engagement has
emerged as a paradigm of public relations practice because of the changing nature
of the public’s active communication behaviors (Edelman, 2008, 2011; Kang, 2010).
However, the concept of engagement has suffered from a lack of clear definition,
theoretical deliberation, and empirical examination. By proposing the psychological
and behavioral engagement of employees as the final outcome of internal public
relations efforts, the current study serves as one of the earliest empirical attempts to
investigate engagement in the context of public relations. Furthermore, this study
builds a nomological framework of internal communication that links the antecedent
(authentic leadership) and the process (transparent communication) to the three
interrelated outcomes (organization–employee relationship, perceived internal
reputation, and employee engagement). In addition to confirming transparent
communication as an effective strategy, this study highlights the importance of
organizational leadership in achieving corporate internal communication success
(Men, 2014a, b).

In terms of practice, by demonstrating the positive effects of transparent

communication on employee outcomes, the study suggests that organizations
should listen to the concerns of their employees and invite their participation in

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

determining the information they want or need to know. Beyond this, the organization
should provide complete, detailed, substantial, fair, and accurate information in a
timely manner. More important, the organization should be consistent in its values,
words, and actions and should be accountable over what it says and does.
Additionally, this study suggests that public relations can be affected by
management effectiveness and leadership behavior. For best practices of public
relations, an inherently cross-enterprise communication system should be developed
encompassing all leaders, managers, and employees. The organization should
provide the right information aligned with organizational values and goals to
managers at all levels, provide necessary training sessions to equip them with
effective authentic leadership that will facilitate strategic internal communication, and
develop their leadership communication competence and skills. Lastly, for public
relations managers, chief communication officers (CCOs), organizational C-Suite,
and other leaders, the study indicates that effective leadership behaviors not only
affect employee motivation, productivity, and performance (Berger, 2008), but also
cultivate quality organization–employee relationship by influencing the organization’s
communication system. To foster positive employee attitudes, leaders should
advocate ethical, accountable, balanced, and relational-transparent authentic
leadership style (cf., Bowen, 2010).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Despite the interesting findings of this study, several limitations were encountered
and should thus be addressed in future research. First, the current study draws on
existing literature on public administration, management, and public relations to
conceptualize employee engagement as a positive psychological and behavioral
outcome. Future researchers may distinguish between the notions of job/work
engagement and consider the effects of negative or destructive engagement.
Second, data were collected only from the employees’ perspective in this study. To
provide a comprehensive understanding of how authentic leadership and transparent
communication drive employee engagement, insights from public relations
professionals and organizational leaders should be incorporated in the future. Third,
although the use of probability sampling strategy improves the generalizability of the
study, organizations outside its scope or those in other cultural settings should be
careful when referring to the findings. Future research could replicate the study with
different samples from other stakeholder groups in various organizational or cultural
settings.

REFERENCES

Arthur Page Society (2012). Building belief: A new model for activating corporate
character & authentic advocacy. Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link]

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to

the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–
338.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Balkin, J. M. (1999). How mass media stimulate political transparency. Cultural

Values, 3, 393–413.

Barnett, M.L., Jermier, J.M., & Lafferty, B.A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The
definitional landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 26–38.

Berger, B. (2008) Employee/organizational communications. Institute for Public

Relations. Retrieved from: [Link]
organizational-communications/

Berger, B. (2011, June 3). What employee engagement means for new PR pros.
PRWeek. Retrieved from [Link]
engagement-means-for-new-pr-pros/article/204277/

Bowen, S. A. (2010). The nature of good in public relations: What should be its
normative ethic? In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 569-
583). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bromley, D. B. (2000). Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image, and

reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 3, 240–252.

Brunig,S. D., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E.(2003). Building relationships between
organizations and publics: Examining the linkage between organization-public
relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavioral intent.
Communication Studies, 55, 435–446.

Bruning, S. D., & Lambe, K. (2002). Relationship-building and behavioral outcomes:

Exploring the connection between relationship attitudes and key constituent
behavior. Communication Research Reports, 19, 327–337.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and

publics: Development of a multi-dimension organization-public relationship
scale. Public Relations Review, 25, 157–170.

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,

applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis
Group.

Coombs, W. T. (2000). Crisis management: Advantages of a relational perspective.

In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship
management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public
relations (pp. 73–94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis

situations: A fusion of relational management and symbolic approaches.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 321-340.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but
learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic
leadership theory and authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 475–
493.

Edelman, R. (2008). Public engagement: The evolution of public relations. The First
Grunig Lecture, University of Maryland, College Park.

Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient: A
multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand
Management, 7, 241–255.

Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel (2004). Fame & Fortune. Pearson Education, Inc. Upper
Saddle River, NJ.

Gardberg, N., & Fombrun, C. (2002). The global reputation quotient project: First
steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation.
Corporate Reputation Review, 4, 303–315.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic
leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22(6), 1120-1145.

Gotsi, M., &Wilson, A.M. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition.

Corporate Communications, 6, 24–30.

Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to

relationship indicators: Antecedents of Relationships, public relations
strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning
(Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to
the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent public relations and
effective organizations: A study of communication management in three
countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.\

Haven, B., Bernoff, J., & Glass, S. (2007). Marketing’s news key metric: Engagement
[White paper]. Forrester. Retrieved from
[Link]
se/pdfs/marketing_new_key_metric_engagement.pdf

Heise, J. A. (1985). Toward closing the confidence gap: An alternative approach to

communication between public and government. Public Affairs Quarterly, 9,
196–217.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public
relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations, Commission on
PR Measurement and Evaluation.

Hong, S. Y., & Yang, S. (2009). Effects of reputation, relational satisfaction and
customer-company identification on positive word-of-mouth intentions. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 21, 381–403.

Hong, S. Y., & Yang, S. (2011). Public engagement in supportive communication

behaviors toward the organization: Effects of relational satisfaction and
organizational reputation in public relations management. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 23, 191–217.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M.(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal, 6–55.

Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring

organization–public Relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13,
61–90.

Hung, C. J. F. (2006). Toward the theory of relationship management in public

relations: How to cultivate quality relationship? In E. L. Toth (Ed.). The future
of excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 443–
476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hutton, J. G. (1999). The definitions, dimensions and domain of public relations.

Public Relations Review, 25, 199–214.

Hutton, J. G., Goodman, M. B., Alexander, J. B., & Genest, C. M. (2001). Reputation
management: The new face of corporate public relations? Public Relations
Review, 27, 247–261.

Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and
eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 373–394.

Jahansoozi, J. (2006). Organization-stakeholder relationships: Exploring trust and

transparency. Journal of Management Development, 25, 942–955.

Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on

employees’ attitudes. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27,
646–666.

Kang, M. (2010). Toward a model of engaging publics: Trust, satisfaction and

identification, and the mediating role of public engagement between
organization-public relationships and supportive behaviors. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Kim, H. (2007). A multi-level study of antecedents and a mediator of employee-

organization relationship, Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 167–197.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and

disengagement at work, Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

Kang, M. (2010). Toward a model of engaging publics: Trust, satisfaction and

identification, and the mediating role of public engagement between
organization-public relationships and supportive behaviors. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Keith, T. J. (2006), Multiple Regression and Beyond. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ketchum, Inc. (2010). Drivers of employee engagement. unpublished document.

Kim, J. & Rhee, Y. (2011). Strategic thinking about employee communication

behavior (ECB) in public relations: Testing the models of megaphoning and
scouting effects in Korea, Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 243–268.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York: The Guilford Press.

Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1994). Communicating change: Winning employee support
for new business goals. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Linhart, S. (July 18, 2011). Job one: Keeping employees happy and engaged.
PRWeek. Retrieved from [Link]
employees-happy-and-engaged/article/207660/

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development

approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive
organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–261).
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human
spirit at work. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–
37.

Men, L. R. (2011). CEO credibility, organizational reputation, and employee

engagement. Public Relations Review, 38, 171–173.

Men, L. R. (2014a). Why leadership matters to internal communication: Linking

transformational leadership, symmetrical communication, and employee
outcomes. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26 (3), 256-279.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Men, L. R. (2014b). Strategic employee communication: Transformational leadership,

communication channels, and employee satisfaction. Management
Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 264-284.

Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. S. (2013). Towards an integrated model of public engagement
on corporate social network sites: Antecedents, the process, and relational
outcomes. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(4), 257-273.

Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2013). Measuring the impact of leadership style and
employee empowerment on perceived organizational reputation. Journal of
Communication Management, 19, 171-192.

Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic
internal communication and employee-organization relationships. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 26(4), 301-324.

Murray, K, & White, J. (2005). CEOs’ views on reputation management. Journal of

Communication Management, 9, 348–358.

Neider, L.L., & Schriesheim, C.A. (2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI):
Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.09.008

Ni, L., & Wang, Q. (2011). Anxiety and uncertainty management in an intercultural
setting: The impact on organization-public relationships. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 23, 269–301.

Parsley, A. (2006, Spring). Road map for employee engagement. Management

Services, 10–11.

PRSA (2012). A modern definition of public relations. Retrieved from

[Link]
.php/2012/03/01/new-definition-of-public-relations/

Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004), The drivers of employee
engagement, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in

work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684.

Rawlins, B. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency

and employee trust. Public Relations Journal, 2, 1–21.

Rawlins, B. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder

measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 21, 71–99.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2010). A typology of public engagement mechanisms.

Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 251–290.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-618.

Seltzer, T., & Zhang, W. (2011). Toward a model of political organization-public

relationships: antecedent and cultivation strategy influence on citizens'
relationships with political parties. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23,
24–45.

Stacks, D. W. (2011). You are what you brand: Managing your image and reputation.
In Jason S. Wrench (Ed.) Workplace communication for the 21st century:
Tools and strategies that impact the bottom line. New York: Praeger.

Stacks, D. W., Dodd, M., & Men, L. R. (2011). Public relations research and planning.
In Gillis, T. (Ed.) The IABC Handbook of Organizational Communication: A
Guide to Internal Communication, Public Relations, Marketing and Leadership,
2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Turner, P. (2011, August 31). The inside story is of utmost importance. PRWeek,
retrieved from [Link]
importance/article/210875/

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S., & Peterson, S.J.
(2008, February). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a
theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126.

Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2010).
Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors.
The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 901–914.

Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading
groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 4–24.

Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). The influence of authentic leadership

behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 3, 6–23.

Yang, S. (2007). An integrated model for organization - public relational outcomes,

organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 19, 91–121.

Yang, S., & Grunig, J. E. (2005). The effects of organization–public relationship

outcomes on cognitive representations of organizations and overall
evaluations of organizational performance. Journal of Communication
Management, 9, 305–325.

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

 Men Employee Engagement in Relation to Employee–Organization Relationships

Yankelovich, D., & Immerwahr, J. (1993). Beyond the beltway. New York: The
American Assembly.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.

LINJUAN RITA MEN, PH.D., APR, is an assistant professor in the Department of

Public Relations at the University of Florida. Email: cicirita [at] [Link]

Public Relations Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015) 2

View publication stats