Organisational storytelling : using narrative communication for advancements in employee engagement and organisational reputation

Master’s Thesis

Organisational Storytelling: Using narrative communication for advancements in employee engagement and organisational reputation

Written by Karl Schreiber 11353678 Supervisor: Dr. James Slevin Date: February 2, 2018

Master Communication Science - Corporate Communication Graduate School of Communication

Abstract

Organisations constitute for complex social environments that engage in stakeholder communication. The relationship to its employees must be characterised by coherent, engaging organisational communication. Failing to meet engagement and relational standards through means of communication puts organisations in competitive disadvantage. Organisational storytelling and narrative are effective communication methods that can counter such tendencies by influencing employee’s sensemaking and belief systems regarding their organisational environment. The study takes a moderated mediation model that considers communication openness and employee relationships dynamics and their influence on

engagement and reputation outcomes. The findings conclude that the interpretative capacities of organisational storytelling allow organisations to foster engagement and strengthen its reputation amongst its employees. Open and trusted communication climates reinforce the effects of the storytelling medium yielding long-term organisational benefits like innovation and productivity.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank his parents, his brothers and family for the unconditional love and support, their boundless belief and constant motivation for achievement. The years abroad, the nostalgia and the life lessons and experiences which only have been made possible through you led me to understand what bliss means.

Further I want to thank my professors from the University of Amsterdam for their knowledge and teaching all of which culminates, at least academically, in this present work. A special thanks to Dr. James Slevin who as my tutor has provided very detailed and analytical feedback without which I surely would have not been able to optimise this writing process.

Lastly, I want to thank all friends, new and old, who I have met along the way and made time in Amsterdam so memorable; Ivan & Alex, even the harshest Canadian winters cannot stop us now, JCL, for always making a home away from home and Museumnacht special, Lennart for your profund debate, Tom for the race counsel and beyond, Michi for your draft revision and Bavarian warmth, and Madeleine for your admirable zeal and encouragement that made me strive forward.

Introduction

In today’s competitive world, organisations need to constantly fulfill various stakeholder expectations in order to guarantee survival and legitimise their right of existence (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, Van Ruler, Verčič, & Sriramesh, 2007). As such, stakeholder management requires strategic communication addressing various constituencies of the organisation (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Hallahan et. al, 2007). Specifically for corporate communication this entails managing all messaging and communication efforts under one banner into one coherent, integrated message avoiding communicating different identities to different

stakeholder groups. (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2013) (note: for the purpose of this research corporate communication will hereinafter be tantamount to organisational communication).

The multitude of communication functions and message overload poses a problem to organisations competing for stakeholder attention (Sinclair, 2005). Communication missing out on connecting with employee stakeholders can threaten organisational long-term achievements. Failing to establish captivating and engaging employee relations can hamper organisational soft power advantages engagement and reputation.

So did Scandinavian Airline Systems (SAS) in times of crisis and reassessment of its brand successfully use internal storytelling approaches to engage in dialogue and

belongingness thus mitigating previous employee frustrations and initiate change (Langer & Thorup, 2006).

Thus, organisational storytelling creatively and effectively opens lines of communication between organisation and employees through which engagement gaps can be filled. The opportunity to do so leads to the overriding research question:

Does organisational storytelling constitute for an effective internal communication strategy to influence organisational objectives namely employee engagement and reputation?

The insights from storytelling and narrative free opportunity for communication strategy and sensemaking behaviours all aimed at creating long-term competitive advantages thus consolidating the organisation’s legitimacy in the long run (Hallahan et. al, 2007; Boyce, 1996). Strengthening engagement and reputation creates long-term value for the organisation which is rewarded by increased productivity, cognitive attachment, efficiency, driving advocacy and innovation, lower turnover, driving change initiatives and improve autonomy and leadership (Sinclair, 2005; Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009; Markos, 2010; Gill, 2011) Employees experience engagement, job satisfaction, trust, socialisation and sensemaking benefits (Boyce, 1996; Spillan, 2001; Cardona, 2003; James & Minnis, 2004; Gill, 2015).

Testing the logic and effectiveness of described communication approach a survey questionnaire collects data on organisational communication practices, employees’ perceptions of communication openness as well as engagement and reputation outcomes for the

organisation.

Background: legitimacy in the communicative concept of organisations

The concept of organisations will not be seen from its economic and administrative dimension. Rather, the communicative concept of organisations and institutions (CCO) as explained by Van Ruler and Verčič (2005) conceptualises organisations as social systems that are subject to interaction and communication in order to justify their existence through

legitimacy and trustworthiness.

As a human creation, institutions are anchored in the dynamic realisations of

meaningfulness which in return depend on the legitimate values given by society (Van Ruler & Verčič, 2005). As such, institutions only exist for as long as society deems them to be

meaningful. This surge for meaningfulness can be strategically filled by storytelling as it activates meaningful, process-oriented and polyphonic characteristics in the communication process (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2013).

Conceptually, an organisation’s communication can be approached through a CCO-dominant mindset whose images, social processes, sensemaking and symbols are shaped through organisational storytelling. Organisational storytelling can affect meaning construction by invoking frames and behavioural scripts as narratives aide in making inferences in context or comprehending predictive social behaviours (Pentland & Rueter, 1994; Schank & Abelson, 2013). In the CCO-paradigm communicative elements are the foundation in the organisation’s ontology (Taylor, 2009). Based on these premises organisational storytelling claims that communication constructs organisational legitimacy more than economic approaches.

Modern management approaches privilege pure managerial discourse focused on economics and rationality thus neglecting other organisational dynamics (Welch & Jackson, 2007). Instead, for this research’s purpose, strategic emphasis should lie on symbolic

interactionism, communication, meaning and exchange (Hallahan et al., 2007) as foundation for effective employee relationships, engagement and reputation. This research acknowledges the potential for strategic organisational storytelling and narrative, with emphasis on participatory, dynamic and meaning-induced communication.

Communication strategy: Organisational Storytelling

Stories and narrative are as old as mankind (Denning, 2005). Apple’s Steve Jobs, GE’s “brings good things to life” or IBM’s reinvention and reinstating of reputation through engaging storytelling are exemplary for corporate successes (Dowling, 2006). Storytelling and novella have since allowed for relationships between socially constructed realities (Berger & Luckmann, 1991), shared beliefs of actors and listeners and, in this case, organisational ideology (Boyce, 1996). The story/narrative communication is seen as symbolic work through which

organisational reality is constructed. This reality is orientated on an organisation’s mission, values, objectives and virtues (Rhodes & Brown, 2005). Specifically in organisational storytelling members express understanding and commitment which implies the expression of a

sensemaking perspective of a socially constructed environment (their workplace) that develops either consciously or unconsciously (Boyce, 1996). Communication science researchers have been pursuing storytelling from an interpretative perspective in which stories provide meaning to members through symbolic media portending to help in collective sensemaking, the use of language/symbolism and through texts and narrative (Boyce, 1995).

The interpretative narrative paradigm critiques, interprets and actions storytelling as method for communication so that narrative becomes an account of people’s life and meaning (Fisher, 1989; Boyce, 1995). This interpretation becomes clear in Boyce’s (1996) organisations as cultures in which members create reality by interpreting behaviours and stories they hear guiding their context for organisational sensemaking and eventually their work ethic. This also means that these cultures can be altered through communicative action of the members or organisation. The constant existence and alteration of narratives shows the contest over

meaning in an interpretative paradigm in which multiple narratives can either become dominant or marginalised (Rhodes & Brown, 2005).

In (modern) organisational context, storytelling and narratives include story/narrative (for characteristics see Sinclair, 2005 or Dailey & Browning, 2014), legend (Boyce, 1996), ethos (Smircich, 1983), myth (Mitroff & Kilmann, 1976), saga (Clark, 1972), pictures/symbols, fables, tales, short stories, epics, history, drama, comedy, pantomime, paintings, movies and (informal) conversation (Dailey & Browning, 2014). Weick (1979) argued that all these forms of oral/written talk constitute organizational reality, so similarly to the CCO-perspective which assumes that organizations emerge in communication (and nowhere else) (Taylor & Van Every, 2000).

Amid these traditional, verbal communication exchanges technology plays critical roles in organisation’s management and functioning. Meaning effects of discourse and technology cannot be reduced to one or the other in today’s tech-savvy environment. (Latour, 1993; Doolin, 2003). But almost disregarded in this research the main focus on meaning and sensemaking function is put on storytelling and reality construction as human product.

On top of these terminological distinctions storytelling makes organisational, story and employee aspects salient linking sensemaking (i.e. helping employees explain social reality that is their working environment), member socialisation/relationships, onboarding, adaptation, social control and generating commitment/engagement (Boyce, 1996) amongst peers and to the employer organisation.

Storytelling and sensemaking

There is strong relationship between story and sensemaking. James and Minnis (2004) state that stories act as structuring metaphors that help humans avoid ambiguity about a life event. This affair requires observation, self-interaction and social interaction so that

communicated norms and values successfully imply what should happen (James & Minnis, 2004; Feldman, 1990). Rhodes and Brown (2005) refer to Gabriel (2000) who even describes stories as means of infusing events with meaning. Giving meaning and sense are amongst the often cited qualities of story/narrative to the point that event accounts are given meaning rather than accepting the mere circumstance of the event happening (Bruner, 1991), and act as mnemonics to reduce possible equivocality of organisational life (Rhodes & Brown, 2005). Rhodes and Brown (2005) concluded that in effect the nature of stories gives space to an observation of reflexivity of narrative sensemaking that reveals stories are in essence the ‘real’ sense rather than mere representations which convey meaning. So, their ontological importance can be understood as shift from meaning representation to sense in essence.

In that, narratives help understand complex situations allowing individual cognition about problems, experiences and solutions. The story value can be substantial through personalised richness that other internal even written communication cannot achieve (Gill, 2011a). An advantage of storytelling is that even though objectives remain the same, stories allow for adaptations to make them more personal and relatable depending on the audience (Gill, 2011a).

The characteristics of storytelling and sensemaking allow complex social interactions and environments to be filled with meaning and provide conceptual anchor points for employees in organisational settings. These rather theoretical conceptions can be transferred onto practical organisational life. When employed strategically and organically storytelling roams and creates organisational reality that can influence engagement and reputation as discussed in the

following.

Impact of storytelling on engagement and reputation Engagement

Engagement refers to the combination of role performance and affective state (Macey & Schneider, 2008). As such, commitment and engagement are related concepts. Organisational commitment displays the employee’s identification and involvement with the organisation, willingness to exert (extra) effort and membership in the organisation (McCarthy, 2008). Higher commitment to the organisation is related to higher levels of performance (Siders, George, & Dharwadkar, 2001). Definitions and measures for engagement have often been blurred with alike sounding ideas of commitment or even organisational citizenship behaviour yet they are not synonymous (Saks, 2006). Kahn (1990) described engagement as physically, cognitively and emotionally rooted expression of role performances by the organisational members. This specifies engagement as degree of employee’s absorption in role performances compared to the attitudinal and one-way nature of commitment (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004; Saks, 2006). Social exchange theory also provides theoretical rationale for the nature of engagement. (Employee) relationships abide by rules that are characterised through reciprocity and amends (Saks, 2006). This makes engagement a two-way relationship between employee and

organisation in which an organisation’s socio-emotional resources (here: benefits of storytelling) are repaid with the employee’s physical, emotional and cognitive devotion (here: engagement) (Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006). For example, the organisation can strengthen a relational exchange

through communicating and eliciting affective engagement (via storytelling, the ‘we are one family’ narrative) which is seen as binding force creating feelings of belongingness as form of employee repayment (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).

Consequently, seen as such organisational resource storytelling contains information that generates or reinforces behaviour by using work, people or the organisation itself in past, present and future. Stories need to have the necessary content relevance to yield objectives yet have to be highly engaging (Sinclair, 2005; Gill, 2011). Referencing back to CCO-legitimation, employees construct social meaning of conferred legitimacy and thus engagement is seen as part for this construction because underlying employee behaviours and attitudes create moral and cognitive legitimacy scopes for the organisation at large (Bitektine, 2011). Intuitively, this combines organisations’ and employees’ notions of commitment, passion, effort and devoted energy which are seen as valuable to the organisation’s effectiveness (Spillan & Mino, 2001; Macey & Schneider, 2008).

Through organisational storytelling internal communication can foster and facilitate engagement by establishing binding relationships with employees according to the

organisation’s mission. Engaged employees prize emotional and intellectual bonds with their employer that can manifest itself in strong commitment or contribution to the high performance organisation or its output (Hewitt Associates, 2009; Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014). By doing so, narratives can build an engagement culture which spurs efficiency and organisational ethos (Gill, 2015). The emotionally rich and cognitively influential features of organisational storytelling and narrative provide in effect many interference points to influence precisely these role

convictions and performances held by employees which culminate in engagement.

Having reviewed the relation and benefits of organisational storytelling on engagement it is hypothesized the following:

H1a: The performance of organisational storytelling is positively related to employee engagement with the organisation.

Reputation

Reputation is the organisation’s esteem held by its stakeholders (l’Etang, 2007). Lately, unilateral definitions are being replaced by a variety of different scholarly approaches from the management, marketing and economics literature which coin the term to their integrative framework (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001). Gotsi and Wilson (2001) cites important characteristics of Fombrun’s (1996) reputation research: a cognitive, bottom-up judgment of the organisation’s attractiveness based on multiple personal and social (employee’s) images. Deriving his own conclusion from the body of literature Gotsi broadens the definition by including the opportunity to create and foster as well as a dynamic bilateral component in which reputation and images are influenced through an organisation’s communication and symbolism (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001). For the authors the concepts of reputation and corporate image are differentiated but

interrelated (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001). Another interrelated notion of reputation is seen in the organisation's messaging of virtues in order to revalidate their legitimacy (Dowling, 2006). Employees need to be ensured they work in safe, stable and trustworthy environments. Good reputation supports and mirrors this message to internal stakeholders. Even further, good organisational storytelling communicates externally oriented statements to reinforce mission and morality which consequently (re-)fuel reputation (Dowling, 2006; Vogel, 2007). The foundation for storytelling effectiveness lies in persuasiveness and intuitive appeal addressing values and morality which form the basis of organisational reputation (Dowling, 2006). Especially in

organizational context these modes of information are more memorable, deeper and believable generating more enthusiasm than other sanitised (communication) material (Dowling, 2006, Hansen, 2009).

Internally, reputation is the esteem held by employees which in itself is also affected by the organisation's cultural DNA (Hull & Read, 2003). Money and Hillenbrand (2006) who conceptualise reputation as both perceptual and attitudinal constructs depict it as the

organisation’s asset as well as an asset in employee’s minds. The two authors also introduce the integration of reputation into the concept of organisational value creation by putting focus on employee perceptions. Using Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) causal framework they relate

experiences, beliefs, attitudes and intentions into a causal chain that is steered towards forming people’s attitudes towards an object. Fishbein and Ajzen’s framework is integrated into the causal framework of organisational reputation building so that consequently employee intentions reinforce their attitudinal judgements of their employer (Money & Hillenbrand, 2006). The power of organisational storytelling influences this whole causal chain. Receiving, comprehending and acting on organisational stories follows the depicted linear causality especially with regards to making sense of beliefs and virtues. The model can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Integration of Fishbein and Ajzen’s model and the causal framework of corporate reputation, Money & Hillenbrand (2006).

As previously explored, organisational storytelling is valuable medium for engagement. Spurring engagement through communication strengthens internal reputation (l’Etang, 2007). Successfully linking engagement to employee management results in internal drivers for

organisational success such as employee satisfaction, personal/job advancements, opportunity and employee support (Gill, 2011a).

Consequently, the system advances mutually beneficial relationships which are critical in establishing healthy internal reputation and opening the lines of engagement with employees (Dowling, 2006; Welch & Jackson, 2007). Through sharing, repetition and employee chatter,

Personal Level Observations Experiences Beliefs Attitudes Intentions Behaviours

Antecedent

s

stories further generate brand values that can become antecedents for future relationships, commitment and discussion on vision and values, enabling employee’s sensemaking of organisational culture and opportunity (Sinclair, 2005; Gill, 2011a).

The link between internal and external reputation becomes evident when considering employees as important contact points for the organisation’s other external stakeholders.

Gill’s idea of the storytelling to reputation model is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Storytelling to reputation model, Gill (2011a).

Externally, employees representing the organisation’s brand through work and value attitudes influences the portrayal of their employer to the outside world and thus defines the external reputation (Gill, 2011a; Waters, 2010; Dowling, 2006). Apart from economic stances, an organisation’s wealth can increasingly be attributed to soft forms of value creation referred to as intangible assets; reputation, trust, goodwill, image, corporate citizenship behaviour and relationships (Gill, 2011a; Post, 2004). Money and Hillenbrand (2006) also refer to this soft concept of capital in their reputation framework where perception and attitude originate from the inside creating outside reputation benefits as reinforcements (see above and Figure 1). The importance of reputation and intangibles requires effective communication methods in order to make employees reputation champions of their organisation (Campbell, 2004). Stories that enhance their belief systems and organisational knowledge will contribute positively to any recommendation or remark about the organisation strengthening the reputation further (Louisot, 2004). Repetition and sharing of these mantras does not only occur internally, once expressed

Corporate Storytelling Deeper engagement with staff Internal connection with corporate brand

to outside stakeholders employees consolidate external reputation by ‘living’ their organisation and holding it accountable to its (outside) message (Gill, 2011a).

With regards to employee knowledge about the organisation two advantages emerge highlighting the sensemaking and empowerment features of organisational storytelling. Firstly, employees possess power over their knowledge formation and subjection. Secondly, employees have individual convictions of their belief in said knowledge by means of sensemaking and interpretation (Gill, 2011a). Utilising sensemaking and meaning provides the employee with greater conviction and passion in conveying organisational virtues to externals. Engaging in organisational storytelling thus enriches and enhances overall reputation (Gill, 2011a). This anchored employee belief in the organisation with all its virtues relationship benefits can be driven from internal communications via organisational storytelling and narrative (Gill, 2011a).

The reviewed literature suggests potential for organisational storytelling to have influence on internal and external reputation, thus it is hypothesised:

H1b: The performance of organisational storytelling is positively related to internal reputation of the organisation expressed in employee’s esteem held of their employer.

H1c: The performance of organisational storytelling is positively related to external reputation of the organisation expressed in employee’s belief in virtues of their employer communicated to external audiences

Employee relationships & Communication openness

The suggested main effects of organisational storytelling on engagement and reputation constitute for ideal expectations that insofar neglect certain organisational life and work

environments. Two of these outside dynamics employee relationship (trust) and communication openness affect the interplay of the main effects communicatively.

Maintaining good employee relationships becomes a greater asset to the organisation as employees constitute for the essential workforce and creative property pools. They also

champion brand ambassador behaviour, maintain higher productivity through engagement and satisfaction and ultimately co-found reputational outcomes (Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014; Men, 2014; Gill, 2011a). Chipotle’s or Nokia’s employees showed such brand ambassadorship by regularly endorsing their employer via social media interactions and blogging (Dholakiya, 2014).

Organisational culture (Schein, 1990), diversity (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004), power (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011) and leadership (McCarthy, Feuerlicht, Öhn, & Silverstone, 2013) just to name a few, also have influences on internal communication dynamics affecting employee relationships. Effectively, symmetrical internal communication (Men, 2014) which heralds availability, competence, discreteness and fairness has evolved into the most commonly referenced form of dialogical communication between organisation and employees with positive outcomes (Cardona & Elola, 2003). Recognising the benefits, organisations expand on paying more attention to employees as distinct public in their communication efforts. Likewise, employees want more information on their employer and the organisation they work for partly for acquisition of knowledgeable or their own self-identification with organisational values (Smidts, Pruyn, & Van Riel, 2001; Dolphin, 2005; Gill, 2011a). Storytelling is a rich, informal, dialogical, reciprocal and memorable communication medium that opens

conversations and makes employees relaxed and engage with each other (Brown, 2006).

A moderating communication indicator of organising employee relationships is the concept of communication openness. A communicative relationship between organisation and employees, as well as employees to employees that promotes openness features respect, trust, honesty and transparency to better cooperation between all (internal) members of the

organisation (Myers, Knox, Pawlowski, & Ropog, 1999; Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014; Men, 2014). From a behavioural point of view communication openness is defined as the "message sending and receiving behaviors of superiors, subordinates, and peers with regard to task,

personal, and innovative topics" (Rogers, 1987, p. 54). This understanding provides a frame for the further investigation into employee relationship and organisation.

Employees value trusted and open communication climates in organisations which in turn results in positive employer-employee relationship evaluations (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2012; Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 2000). Communicating openly and consistently with employees also strengthens their engagement by reciprocity of trust and respect, as indicated earlier, which increases their likelihood to develop positive relationships with the organisation and other

stakeholders (Saks, 2006). These important communication habits are the foundation for an organisation’s long-term success in employee relationship, performance, effectiveness and engagement (Spillan & Mino, 2001). Open, clear and timely communication or feedback builds trust between employees and develops a sense of mutual respect in favour of an overall satisfactory relationship between organisation and employees (Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014).

For successful internal communications trust and respect are main components of organisation to stakeholder relationships (employee relationships) (Botan & Taylor, 2004). The sense of belonging, assisting and valuing fellow employees is spurred through open

communication as it creates relationship-friendly working climates (Welch & Jackson, 2007). These welcoming climates are also found to be critical in employees’ first years of tenure and for onboarding processes (Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014). While using positive sentiments of that relationship in order to increase engagement, organisations further stress a horizontal, often face-to-face communication as aspect of their openness concept in internal

communication. The practice of face-to-face communication facilitates the combination of information and interaction (Quirke, 2012), most importantly it provides opportunity to enrich information with verbal and gestural cues (i.e. storytelling) that can complete understanding and is thus more reliable than written data (Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014). Another characteristic of this practice includes the dialogical and equal nature of interaction which is particularly

evident in situations of informal and spontaneous communication between employees or between employees and members of management (Argenti, 1998; Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014). These facets of communication openness lead to the quintessential virtue of employee relationship which affects commitment and employee engagement(Trombetta, 1988).

Trombetta (1988) recognised a plethora of scholarly research on the causes and antecedents of job satisfaction (itself predictor of organisational commitment) that include communication openness and participation in decision-making (see Ivancevich, 1979; Bruning & Snyder, 1983). He concluded that although no published literature had shown direct relationships between communication openness and organisational commitment, communication as concept

establishes information gathering, sensemaking and participation in decision-making and can thus be used as predictor of organisational commitment (Trombetta, 1988).

In the following it is thus assumed that knowledge about these communication variables, especially communication openness, can affect organisational communications specifying employee relationship (trust). The informal, interactive and meaning-inducing qualities of organisational storytelling is expected to flourish more in environments of communication openness due to the described practices and conversational habits. It is hypothesised that the concept of communication openness as sort of preset will moderate the effect of organisational storytelling on employee relationship creating a more trusted organisational environment.

Secondly, it is assumed that good employee relationship characterised through levels of trust is mediating the effect of organisational storytelling on engagement and reputation due to discussed reciprocity principles. The moderated mediation can be expressed in the following hypotheses:

H2a: Communication openness is moderating the effect of organisational storytelling on employee relationship which in turn is mediating the main effect of organisational storytelling on employee engagement.

H2b: Communication openness is moderating the effect of organisational storytelling on employee relationship which in turn is mediating the main effect of organisational storytelling on internal reputation.

H2c: Communication openness is moderating the effect of organisational storytelling on employee relationship which in turn is mediating the main effect of organisational storytelling on external reputation.

Model

Figure 3. Conceptual Model

Methodology & Research Design Design

This study uses descriptive quantitative analysis (Bryman, 2015) with SPSS and PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) to test the dimensions of communication openness, employee

Organisational Storytelling Employee Engagement Organisation Reputation Employee Relationships Communication Openness H1a + H1b + H1c Mod H2 a + _H2 b + _H2 c a b+c Med

CCO-­‐Environment  

relationship, engagement and reputation (DV) in relation to organisational storytelling efforts (IV). This research uses a self-administered online survey design with originally 61 items in total (23 questions). The survey approach is chosen as appropriate research design in order to effectively record large amounts of respondent’s data: organisational employees. Further, the method guarantees levels of objectivity and generalisability, enhancing the quantitative study’s qualities for replicability (Babbie, 2010; Bryman, 2015).

Yet, as the quantitative output yields more statistical results, findings are limited in the sense that they provide less intelligence on human perceptions or detailed accounts of human behaviour and sensemaking in relation to perception of subjective aspects like storytelling (Babbie, 2010; University of Southern California, 2018). Possible limitations are elaborated on in the discussion section.

Setting & Participants

As the main research subjects are organisations and their employees the data collection is mainly steered towards organisational environments where participants are most likely to be expected to assume their role as employees. Items in the survey specifically ask for

organisational structures, communication habits and employee’s peer-to-peer relationships as well as their relations and engagements to their employer.

Further, the presence of storytelling and narrative as communication form require work and team settings in which a sufficient number of employees interact and communicate with each other on a regular basis, most importantly outside the organisation’s core business related context so that it constitutes for the storytelling dimensions described as the informal and rather colloquial chatter in the previous section (see story and narrative). Same holds true for the organisation’s size which requires it to be an established entity that shares history, mission, values and culture with its employees and other stakeholders (Pratt & Beaulieu, 1992) in order

to develop capabilities for narrative production evolving around the company as social actor in the employee’s life (Whetten & Mackey, 2002).

Also, more generally these organisations have sophisticated understanding and practice of internal communications possibly employing whole communication departments to fulfill the job than the capabilities of small organisations with limited resources may allow (Butler, 2001). The expected potential for storytelling as an appropriate communicative vehicle within the organisation is grounded in the organisation’s history, success, exposure and history (Boyce, 1996; James & Minnis, 2004).

This method of convenience poses limits on the design. Since conducted online, responses can only be given through computer or smartphone technology which restricts other forms of response recording. Also, it is to be assumed that respondents understand English.

Particular focus is directed on the effects of storytelling on engagement and reputation rather than exploring the nature and composition of a narrative itself so that mentioned

outcomes can be directly interpreted towards the advancements of the organisation’s objectives (an additional, mostly qualitative, research into the components and antecedents of story would go beyond the limits of feasibility for this study).

Additionally, general descriptives of respondents are also recorded via the survey that enhance the study’s representativeness. Socio-demographic as well as industry, organisation size, tenure and position are included in the survey.

Data collection & Procedure

Gaining access to respondents is done contacting organisations and employees and inquiring for survey participation. Points of contact occur between the researcher and his network of employed acquaintances, addressing HR and communication departments of organisations. Survey content is based on communication principles and practices so

participation will not require releasing sensitive information about the organisation’s day-to-day business.

Participants were sent an email invitation which included the link to the survey on the Qualtrics platform. Before starting the survey respondents are informed about ethical and data sensitivity standards that are in compliance with the University’s research conduct. After confirming participatory consent respondents are self-instructed to complete the survey. Respondents can opt out the survey at any time.

After sampling has been concluded, research will be evaluated using SPSS statistical analysis.

Measurement

The survey contains 23 questions with originally 61 items total which constitute for the five main concepts organisational storytelling, communication openness, employee

relationships, engagement and reputation as well as descriptive questions. These constructs employ measurements that have previously been used in similar research (for example Trombetta, 1988; Spillan & Mino, 2001; Money & Hillenbrand, 2006). The full survey and detailed construction of the scales can be found in the Appendix.

The communication openness scale included nine items have been adapted to fit this research with focus on perceived communication openness between colleagues of the same organisation. The original seven-point Likert-scale response has been modified to scales of five which lets respondents answer between 1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree (see Myers et al., 1999). The five-point Likert scaling has been chosen to guarantee uniformity across the survey as other scales are originally in five point thus preventing negatively skewed tendencies in results when using larger positive response option scales like seven or ten points (Dawes, 2008). Perceived communication openness in conversational habits between employees is

asked: In conversations at work, my colleagues … ask me for suggestions / act on criticism I provide. Cronbach's Alpha was used to calculate the scale’s reliability, the reliability coefficient for the adapted scale was .84 (M = 3.85, SD = .58).

Employee relationship (trust) was measured using a seven item scale asking

respondents: I trust my colleagues. The original Likert-type answer scale has been adopted and ranges from 1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree. Cronbach's Alpha was used to calculate the scale’s reliability which indicated an increase of reliability if one item is deleted leaving a combined six-item scale with a reliability coefficient of .79 (M = 3.73, SD = .61).

Engagement items for organization engagement are: One of the most exciting things for me is getting involved with things happening in this organization / I am highly engaged in this organization. Participants indicated their response on a five-point Likert-type scale with answers ranging from 1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree. Cronbach's Alpha was used to calculate the reliability of the engagement measurement, the improved reliability coefficient for the

adapted scale is .91 (M = 3.34, SD = .97).

The dependent variable reputation was measured through three items adapted from Fombrun et al.’s (1999) five-item Reputation Quotient (RQ): I admire and respect this

organisation / I have a good feeling about this organisation. Further, three items have been adapted from Mowday, Steers and Porter’s (1979) OCQ that represent active relationship qualities of reputation. Respondents are asked to rate the following statements on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree. The combined scale internal reputation scale has a Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of .89 (M = 3.54, SD = .99).

Secondly, external reputation was measured using a nine-item scale has been optimized into seven items and asks respondents: I would other people recommend working for this organisation / I talk up this organisation to my friends as a great company to work for.

to 5 - strongly agree. The combined scale measuring external reputation has a Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of .93 (M = 3.59, SD = 1.03).

Results Descriptives

The study is complemented with different socio-demographic questions which show the following output. Of initially 140 started responses a total of N = 107 respondents completed the survey research (76.4%). The data set has been cleaned of invalid responses which did not constitute for appropriate completion of the survey. The average age of respondents is 28.9 years (N = 101, SD = 9.27) and 51.4% female and 43.9% male participants were recorded (N = 102). Regarding work roles, most respondents indicated that they consider themselves Staff (51.4%) followed by Junior Manager (24.3%), Middle Manager/Team Leader (14.0%) and Senior Executive (6.5%). Whereas a majority works in rather large organisations (100-300: 15.9% and 300+: 44.9% respectively) most employees only have a handful of colleagues as shown in team size. Eightyseven participants indicated having one to five colleagues (81.3%) followed by team size of six to ten colleagues (11.2%). The three most identified industries amongst this population are: education (19.6%), retail (11.2%) and hospitality (11.2%).

Hypothesis testing

The statistical analysis of H1 investigated whether the practice of storytelling affects employee engagement and reputation of the organisation. For further analysis, the independent variable organisational storytelling has been recoded into dichotomous values with with 1 - Yes (practice of storytelling) and 0 - No (no practice of storytelling). The hypotheses H1 (a-c) expect that practicing and performing of organisational storytelling positively influences employee engagement and reputation.

For the analysis of H1a an independent samples t-test was performed. The output shows that organisational storytelling (N = 87, M = 3.48, SD = .94) scored higher on the

dependent variable employee engagement than the absence of organisational storytelling in the organisation (N = 17, M = 2.94, SD = 1.01). The t-test supported the hypothesis H1a as

significant, t(102) = 2.13, p = .035, 95% CI [.037, 1.042]. H1a can be accepted, in which performance of organisational storytelling significantly leads to higher employee engagement.

For H1b and H1c both tests did not significantly proof the suggested relationship. Organisational storytelling (N = 86, M = 3.61, SD = .99) showed higher internal reputation means compared to the absence of organisational storytelling (N = 17, M = 3.21, SD = .99) but this relation was not significantly supported, t(101) = 1.52, p = .133, 95% CI [-.123, .918]. Organisational storytelling does not lead to higher internal reputation; H1b is rejected.

Lastly, in H1c organisational storytelling (N = 86, M = 3.67, SD = 1.01) relates to higher external reputation than the absence of organisational storytelling (N = 17, M = 3.24, SD = 1.09) but did not significantly proof this relationship, t(101) = 1.60, p = .112, 95% CI [-.104, .975], organisational storytelling does not lead to higher external reputation of the organisation, consequently H1c is rejected.

For the analysis of H2a and the relationship between organisational storytelling and employee engagement under condition of communication openness as well as employee relationship (trust), a test of moderated mediation effect was conducted. Conditional process modeling was done as outlined by Hayes (2013) using the PROCESS model 7 in SPSS with bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (BCBCI).

Specifically, communication openness is expected to moderate the relationship between organisational storytelling and employee relationship (trust) which itself is expected to mediate the effect of storytelling on employee engagement. Testing for the moderation effect individually, storytelling alone did not significantly predict employee relationship (trust), t(100) = -.646, p =

.520, but a significant interaction effect of organisational storytelling and communication openness occurred, t(100) = 2.62, p = .010, meaning that open communication climates

moderate the effect of organisational storytelling on employee relationship (trust). The mediated effects of organisational storytelling on employee engagement at different levels of moderation (trust low = -.281, 95% CI [-.565, -.056], trust mean/med = -.062, 95% CI [-.291, .098], trust high = .157, 95% CI [-.105, .440]) suggested at mediation of trust when communication openness is low indicated through significant difference from 0 (95% CI [-.565, -.056]) (Hayes, 2015) and different from the main effect (c’ path), t(101) = 2.37, b = .569, p = .020 (see Figure 3). The moderation mediation index = .378, 95% CI [.087, .720] was different from 0 supporting the conditional indirect effect model (Hayes, 2015). Storytelling effects on trust are significant for individuals low in communication openness and the indirect effect on employee engagement changes at levels of moderation, H2a can thus be accepted.

Figure 3. Moderated mediation of communication openness and trust on employee engagement. Organisational storytelling: 1 = present, 0 = absent. N = 104, p* < .05, p** < .001

Investigating H2b, and testing for the moderation effect, storytelling alone did not significantly predict employee relationship (trust) as is the case for all direct effects of this nature, t(99) = -.617, p = .538. Nevertheless, a significant moderation effect of communication

Organisational Storytelling Communication Openness Employee Relations “Trust” Employee Engagement -.65 .45* .84** c’ .57*

openness and organisational storytelling on trust occurred, t(99) = 2.92, p = .004. The mediated effects of organisational storytelling on internal reputation at different levels of moderation (trust low = -.300, 95% CI [-.563, -.075], trust mean/med = -.059, 95% CI [-.273, .110], trust high = .182, 95% CI [-.077, .479]) suggested a mediation effect for low communication openness since effect slopes differ from 0 (-.300, 95% CI [-.563, -.075]) and the main effect, t(100) = 1.80, b = .425, p = .076 (see Figure 4) (Hayes, 2015). Moderated mediation index = .423, 95% CI [.123, .755] was significantly different from 0 (Hayes, 2015) supporting the moderated mediation model. Storytelling effects on trust are significant for individuals low in communication openness and the indirect effect on internal reputation changes at levels of moderation, H2b can thus be accepted.

Figure 4. Moderated mediation of communication openness and trust on internal reputation. Organisational storytelling: 1 = present, 0 = absent. N = 103, p* < .005, p** < .001

Lastly, H2c tested for the moderation mediation model on the dependent variable external reputation. Communication openness significantly moderated the relation of

organisational storytelling on employee relationship (trust), t(99) = 2.92, p = .004. The mediated effects of organisational storytelling on external reputation at different levels of moderation (low

Organisational Storytelling Communication Openness Employee Relations “Trust” Internal Reputation -.07 .50* .84** c’ .43

trust = -.337, 95% CI [-.642, -.074], trust mean/med = -.066, 95% CI [-.305, .123], high trust = .204, 95% CI [-.077, .524]) suggested a mediation effect of trust when communication openness is low indicated through significant difference from 0 (-.337, 95% CI [-.642, -.074]) and different from the main effect (c’ path) t(100) = 1.79, b = .466, p = .077 (see Figure 5). Ultimately, conditional indirect effect model was accepted index = .474, 95% CI [.139, .849], which is significantly different from 0 (Hayes, 2015). Storytelling effects on trust are significant for individuals low in communication openness and the indirect effect on external reputation changes at levels of moderation, thus H2c is accepted.

Figure 5. Moderated mediation of communication openness and trust on external reputation. Organisational storytelling: 1 = present, 0 = absent. N = 103, p* < .005, p** < .001

Conclusion

In a setting of competition and profit organisations explore different routes of competitive advantages that attract the best working talent and guarantee the organisation’s survival. The problem that triggered this investigation is organisations’ struggle for coherent internal

messaging that creates long lasting organisational benefits (Dolphin, 2005). Making this

communication captivating remains challenging and organisations only slowly move attention to storytelling strategy (Sinclair, 2005).

Organisational Storytelling Communication Openness Employee Relations “Trust” External Reputation -.07 .50* .94** c’ .47

Looking to solve this problem organisational storytelling is proposed to make for communication strategy that helps employees to understand the organisational complexity of their surrounding (work) environment and ultimately affects organisational objectives.

Innovation, productivity, role attachment and advocacy are some soft power intangibles that can be nurtured through such storytelling.

Organisational storytelling transcends the whole organisational body as it influences hearts and minds of employees and organisation alike. Understanding the communication dynamics behind storytelling allows organisations to champion and manage aforementioned long-term advantages.

Results from this research indicate that open employee communication, healthy working relationships, engagement and reputation are influencing variables on the way to creating said lasting employee and organisational benefits.

Practically, organisations should take successful delivery of organisational storytelling into consideration as it increases employee engagement which serves itself as antecedent for further mutual employee-employer benefits (Saks, 2006) (see Discussion). The performing of organisational storytelling could be facilitated by managers and within work team discussions so that employees are comforted and presented with a relaxed working atmosphere which leads to mutual trust and respect (Kay & Christophel, 1995; Gill, 2011). ‘Pleasant to work’ settings and genuine relationships let employees immerse and engage in their job role and more so with the organisation as a whole.

The main effect analysis concerning reputation outcomes (internal/external) did not indicate preferences of performing organisational storytelling in order to heighten the

organisation's reputation. The employee's esteem in which he/she held the employer did not change on the premise of communicating through storytelling alone. Yet, the hypothesised moderated mediation effect occurred through which open communication climates and positive employee relationships (trust) affect an organisation's reputation when organisational

storytelling is performed (Ayoko & Pekerti, 2008; MacMillan, Money, Downing, & Hillenbrand, 2005).

This relation can be explained by the natural two-way, interpretative dynamic of

organisational storytelling that flourishes more in trusted and open communication relationships leading to sense of belonging and value understanding amongst employees. Through means of internally strengthening the organisational brand values communication reinforces proclaimed external values against which employees and outside stakeholders measure their reputational judgements of the organisation (Gill, 2011). As such organisational storytelling is more

believable, more memorable and generates more enthusiasm than the various sanitized statements (Dowling, 2006). Stronger conviction and belief in these values held by employees contribute to expression of experiences to outside stakeholders reinforcing external reputation (Gill, 2011).

From a practical standpoint the value-laden capacity of storytelling provides

organisations with an opportunity to cater emotionally rich and value-reinforcing narratives. Circulation amongst employees serves the intrinsic goal of validating the organisation’s goals and virtues thus bolster reputation. The qualities of expressing values and morality in such informal manner is yet no substitute for official documents. It requires skilled communicators to craft organisational stories that fit style, appeal and content appropriate to help promote the organisation's good reputation (Dowling, 2006). Social media (Yammer, Skype, etc.), town halls and work collaboration tools that engage employees in real conversations about the products and services need to find way in internal communication practices and can be nurtured through the benefits of storytelling.

The reviewed theory also promotes the advantages of internal communication and delivery via story and narrative as they can enhance employees’ understanding of

organisational values and beliefs effectively creating better organisation-employee relationships that yield future organisational benefits (Denning, 2005; Sinclair, 2005).

The study's results complement the expectation regarding engagement that organisational storytelling positively affects employees’ perceived engagement with the

organisation. Practicing and performing of storytelling by employees increases engagement and as such helps to reduce formal reservations colleagues may have for each other thus mitigate tensions that can affect the work relationship negatively (Ayoko & Pekerti, 2008; Gill, 2015).

As communication openness and employee relationships (trust) moderate and mediate the main relationship respectively, the effect is even more pronounced when open

communication climates and high mutual trust between employees exist within the organisation. These positive circumstances facilitate an engaged working culture in which employees value their relationships amongst each other and their attachment to the organisation as a whole (Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009).

Literature in the corporate communication science field acknowledges that these relationships can become important influencers on the way to producing persistent objectives like employee engagement and reputation (Gill, 2011). Organisational storytelling is embedded in the communicative constitution of organisation (CCO) and its legitimacy process. Highly engaged employees see their organisation in moral righteousness approving their legitimate stance against an environment of other organisations.

Discussion

The findings explained in the conclusion assume organisational storytelling to exhibit highly valuable capacities for an organisation’s stakeholder communication. Similarly to

storytelling used in advertising which aims to increase brand attitudes (also oftentimes related to product and as such profit) internal organisational storytelling aims to increase employee’s

attitudes towards their employer. In this regard, the organisation’s communication efforts strategically spread stories targeted to evoke employees’ attitudinal changes towards engagement and reputation judgements.

Engagement

For the engagement outcome significant influence of organisational storytelling was detected which not only explain the exchange relationship between employer and employee but also give idea to preserving an engagement culture within the workforce (McCarthy, 2008).

As practical implication, engagement provides employees with a sense of commitment, dedication and discretionary effort. In times of short-term employment, flexible and other alternative work settings the social contract between employer and employee has changed. Employee engagement is lacking its substance in contracts where short-term careers are only fulfilled in order to climb company ladders or switch employers. Yet, as organisations seek for innovative and service/product improving ideas spurring engagement cultures pays off as highly engaged employees increase their self-efficacy becoming more invested in tasks and job

(Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009).

Secondly, from the macro-perspective organisations see benefits from engagement in increased performance and lower employee turnover as engaged employees might deter from short-term employment if enjoying the organisational environment. General acceptance and management of engagement within the organisation enable it to optimise agility processes and drive change initiatives as stories facilitate decision-making and enable to see new perspectives (Denning, 2005; Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009).

Additionally, with regards to the suggested variables communication openness and employee relationships (trust) these organisational settings influence engagement outcomes and are also self-reinforcing. Communicating openly and consistently with employees

strengthens their engagement by reciprocity of trust and respect depicting the cognitive and mutually beneficial two-way relationship between employee and employer (Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009). In a way these communication environments contribute to an office etiquette and better employee cooperation.

Reputation

The relation between organisational storytelling and internal/external reputation does not become evident immediately as the researched main effect did not proof a significant prediction. It was assumed that performing of organisational storytelling leads to higher reputational

outcomes. The sensemaking and meaning-induced characteristics of story and narrative were expected to invoke reputational improvements by alignment of the story’s virtues (i.e.

organisation’s virtues) with the expression of employee’s virtues (i.e. reaffirming esteem).

A possible explanation for the insignificance can be found in the complexity of story and narrative. The strategic positioning of organisational values within a story might be received by employees yet the attitudinal change is not immediately happening restricting employees from developing prompt convictions based on their story knowledge (Hannabuss, 2000). Receiving, comprehending and acting on organisational stories, especially with regards to making sense of beliefs and virtues, it could be reasoned that the causal relationship does not follow the

suggested linear pattern but needs more rounds of iteration and feedback looping (Money & Hillenbrand, 2006).

Instead, what has been discovered is that communication openness and employee relationship (trust) influence this specific relationship to the point that these two variables change the perception of reputation of the organisation. Communication openness heralds a dialogical and equal communication practice as one that enables the repetition and

(2007) point to a advantage of this circumstance in which face-to-face delivery of organisational storytelling as form of uncontrolled media contrasts with controlled internal messaging since individual interpretations cut the traditional delivery circle. Organisational stories and narratives that get repeated and circulated amongst employees allow for space and time to alter or even delete (cognitive) elements from the story which can both facilitate or hamper the sensemaking qualities (Dailey & Browning, 2014).

For one communication openness might interfere with the linear expectation and the (repeated) circulation of organisational stories benefit the employee’s behavioural orientation and sensemaking of communicated organisational values. With time sensemaking allows employees to grasp and identify, maybe previously missed elements of story triggering a delayed formation of convictions and beliefs which are eventually expressed in reputation measures. Dowling (2006) names this environment “court of public opinion” (p. 86) in which employees form beliefs and ultimately judge their own value system against the one of the organisation. Only if organisational storytelling resonates with the values, intuition and self-interest employees will reaffirm and update their beliefs.

A practical implication for this observed moderation/mediation effect points to the necessity for open and dialogical communication in management styles so that employees and work teams can enhance their coherence in storytelling reception. Not only reception but nurturing of specific storytelling between employees broadens their understanding of the meaning behind stories or even behind values of stories. Only when individual sensemaking transfers the story’s values to a perceptual and behavioural alteration of the employee’s values can reputation be improved.

Secondly, employees familiar with the narrative rallye for support of organisation's goals and values to develop a feeling of advocacy that extends attachment from one's personal work

role to the organisation as a whole faster than new employees (Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009; Martin, 2016). This suggestion is partly in contrast to Mishra, Boynton and Mishra’s (2014) notion in which open communication climates indeed encourage new employees in their onboarding and socialisation processes but the story value transfer might not be immediate in regards for reputation of the organisation. In this vain it could be suggested that due to the complexity of storytelling and its nature reputational outcomes are more distinct amongst employees with longer tenure. This idea could be further explored in future research (Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014; Martin, 2016).

Thirdly, the mediating aspect of employee relationship (trust) further implies practical strategy that organisations should foster trusting and respecting employee-to-employee

communication leading to a positive health and well-being of the employee (Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009). These circumstances translate into support for the work environment at large and thus the internal reputation of the organisation (Gill, 2011).

Strengths and Limitations

The overall findings of this study shine a generally positive light on the capabilities of organisational storytelling as communication strategy and its influence on organisational objectives. Embedding the research into the CCO-perspective puts focus on communicative aspects of an organisation’s raison d’etre (Taylor, 2009; Putnam & Nicotera, 2010) and

acknowledges the dynamic processes of all the introduced variables organisational storytelling, communication openness, employee relationships, engagement and reputation.

Assessing engagement and reputation through a communication lens instead of

economic conceptions that yield numbers, this study incorporates communication openness and employee relations (trust) as building blocks in achieving aforementioned ends. Whereas other studies mention engagement as desirable outcome they often lack the communicative rationale preceding such objective and neglect environmental factors after all (e.g. Harter, Schmidt &

Hayes, 2002; Macey & Schneider, 2008). This study intends to frame communication openness and employee relationships as unique organisational environments in which organisational storytelling best drives engagement and reputation outcomes.

Despite this advantageous consideration the study also has its limitations. As described, the concept of organisational storytelling has been approached neither in its components nor have particular story types or elements been identified. The quantitative approach to this study simplified the variable organisational storytelling and assumed it only present or absent in the workplace setting. Although defined extensively so that respondents would easily identify situations that constitute for organisational storytelling, the interpretative nature of story and narrative give space to ambiguity in comprehension and execution. In consequence, since no first-hand observation and record of organisational storytelling in practice can be documented it remains unknown whether employees (of the same organisation even) have mutual

understanding of the complexity of the (same) narrative. This also includes an absence of ranking or priority of certain stories which could constitute for favoritism or competition of specific stories amongst employees.

Future research

Lastly, the reviewed literature oftentimes mentions engagement as desirable achievement in the long-term relationship between employer and employee that fulfill

subsequent organisational objectives like increased productivity or innovation (Barker & Gower, 2010). Instead of looking at engagement as the outcome metric as done in this research further research could explore engagement as mediator to these objectives. This would allow to further dissect specific elements of engagement (e.g. satisfaction, commitment), explore the affective state of engagement and measure them against specific organisational or employee objectives (Saks, 2006; Money & Hillenbrand, 2006).

Further, the continuous exploration of organisational storytelling and narratives as communication form should be subject of future research in order to fully understand its

complexity and possibility for stakeholder communication. Qualitative and quantitative methods should be mixed in order to create precise pictures of successful and engaging story types, modes, delivery style, performer and audience measurements and thus establish storytelling as medium (e.g. Yoder-Wise & Kowalski, 2003; Sinclair, 2005; Hansen, 2009; Rosile, Boje, Carlon, Downs, & Saylors, 2013).

The practice of organisational storytelling needs to find its way into management and leadership communication as well as support for change and CSR initiatives of the organisation (Olsson, 2000; Auvinen, Aaltio, & Blomqvist, 2013; Gill, 2015). Leadership should consider organisational storytelling as unspoken wisdom that transcends many formal protocols of the organisation’s business yet guides employee’s values and behaviour (Dowling, 2006).

References:

Argenti, P. A. (1998). Strategic employee communications. Human Resource

Management (1986-1998), 37(3-4), 199.

Auvinen, T., Aaltio, I., & Blomqvist, K. (2013). Constructing leadership by storytelling–the meaning of trust and narratives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(6), 496-514.

Ayoko, O. B., & Pekerti, A. A. (2008). The mediating and moderating effects of conflict and communication openness on workplace trust. International Journal of Conflict Management,

19(4), 297-318.

Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research. 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010

Barker, R. T., & Gower, K. (2010). Strategic application of storytelling in organizations: Toward effective communication in a diverse world. The Journal of Business Communication

(1973), 47(3), 295-312.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge (No. 10). Penguin UK.

Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151-179.

Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field. Journal of

communication, 54(4), 645-661.

Boyce, M. E. (1995). Collective centring and collective sense-making in the stories and storytelling of one organization. Organization Studies, 16(1), 107-137.

Boyce, M. E. (1996). Organizational story and storytelling: a critical review. Journal of

organizational change management, 9(5), 5-26.

Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of organization-public relationships. Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study

and practice of public relations, 3-22.

Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical inquiry, 18(1), 1-21.

Bruning, N. S., & Snyder, R. A. (1983). Sex and position as predictors of organizational commitment. Academy of management journal, 26(3), 485-491.

Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Bunderson, J. S., & Reagans, R. E. (2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations.

Organization Science, 22(5), 1182-1194.

Butler, B. S. (2001). Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: A resource-based model of online social structures. Information systems research, 12(4), 346-362.

Christensen, L. T., & Cornelissen, J. (2013). Bridging corporate and organizational communication: Review, development and a look to the future. In Organisationskommunikation

und Public Relations (pp. 43-72). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative science

quarterly, 178-184.

Dailey, S. L., & Browning, L. (2014). Retelling stories in organizations: Understanding the functions of narrative repetition. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 22-43.

Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used. International journal of market research, 50(1), 61-77.

Denning, S. (2005). The leader's guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of

business narrative (Vol. 269). John Wiley & Sons.

Dholakiya, P. (2014, September 3). 4 Simple Steps for Turning Employees Into Brand

Champions. Retrieved from

https://smallbiztrends.com/2014/09/turning-employees-into-brand-champions.html

Dolphin, R. R. (2005). Internal communications: Today's strategic imperative. Journal of

marketing communications, 11(3), 171-190.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

Doolin, B. (2003). Narratives of change: Discourse, technology and organization.

Organization, 10(4), 751-770.

Edelman Trust Barometer. (2012). 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/79026497/2012-Edelman-Trust-Barometer-

Executive-Summary.

Feldman, S. P. (1990). Stories as cultural creativity: On the relation between symbolism and politics in organizational change. Human relations, 43(9), 809-828.

Fisher, W. R. (1989). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action.

Gabriel, Y. (2000). Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions, and fantasies: Facts,

fictions, and fantasies. OUP Oxford.

Gill, R. (2011). Using storytelling to maintain employee loyalty during change.

International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(15), 23-32.

Gill, R. (2011a). An integrative review of storytelling: Using corporate stories to strengthen employee engagement and internal and external reputation. PRism, 8(1), 1-16.

Gill, R. (2015). Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and adds value to CSR: An integrated literature review. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 662-674.