Employee Engagement and Internal Communication:
A United Arab Emirates Study

Kate
O'Neill
Sasha Hodgson
Mariam Al Mazrouei
Zayed
University
United Arab Emirates
Corresponding author:
Kate O'Neil
Zayed University
United Arab Emirates
Email:
Kate.ONeill@zu.ac.ae

1. Introduction
Chapter 1 of this research paper provides
an overview of the study, explains
the purpose of the study, presents
the methods of data collection and
analysis, states the areas reviewed
from existing literature, and describes
the remaining chapters of this research
paper.
Study Overview
The study explored which internal
communication channels contribute
to an employees' sense of engagement
and how these channels serve to promote
engagement in 16 Emirati employees
in a federal organization in the United
Arab Emirates. Findings indicated
the participants felt most engaged
at work when face-to-face communication
was used. When the participants wanted
to engage colleagues, they also employed
face-to-face communication channels.
Cultural influences were pivotal in
the participants' communication channel
selection.
Purpose of the Study. The purpose
of this exploratory study was to further
understanding of, and contribute to,
the scant research on the United Arab
Emirates (Bristol-Rhys, 2010) employee
engagement and internal communication
in the United Arab Emirates. The study
aimed to determine which internal
communication channels contribute
to an employees' sense of engagement
and how these channels do this.
Design, Methods, and Analysis.
Data were collected via a one-hour
interview with each participant over
a four-week period. Interviews were
conducted face-to-face. Open-ended
questions were administered in a semi-structured
format to acquire participants' point-of-views
and experiences.
The interview method was selected
because (a) it has been noted to be
ideal for qualitative research (Cachia
& Millward, 2011) and (b) it has
been successfully used with Emirati
participants (e.g., Al Jenaibi, 2010;
O'Neill, 2011).
Two interview questions achored this
study: (a) Which internal communication
channels contribute to engaged employees'
sense of engagement? and (b) How these
channels facilitate this.
Data were analyzed for thematic content.
The goal of the analysis was to identify
themes and patterns in the communication
channels selected by the participants
and the reasons for selecting these
channels.
Implications for Practice.
Findings from this study may be used
to promote Emirati employee engagement.
It may also be beneficial for expatriates
in leadership roles in Emirati organizations
as communication channels that engage
Emiratis may be completely different
than those that engage expatriates.
Document Overview. Chapter
2 examines concepts relevant to the
study in order to ground it academically.
Chapter 3 explains the data collection
methods used in this study. It also
describes the participant population
and the method of data analysis. At
the end of chapter 3, ethical considerations
are presented. The data is presented
in chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents interpretation
of the findings and limitations of
the study.?
2: Literature
Review
The purpose of this exploratory study
was to further understanding of, and
contribute to, the scant research
on employee engagement and internal
communication in the United Arab Emirates.
The study aimed to determine which
internal communication channels contribute
to employees' sense of engagement
and how these channels do this.
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement (EE) is a business
management concept that is gaining
popularity as only recently has employee
engagement been recognized as an essential
element of organizational success
(Gallup, 2012). Researchers have posited,
"Employee engagement is, arguably,
the most critical concern for organizations
in the 21st century" (Leadership
Insights, 2011, p. 7). This assertion
was supported by a 2012 Confederation
of British Industry (CBI) study showing
that 60% of employers planned to prioritize
employee engagement in the upcoming
year.
Over the years, employee engagement
has existed under different names
such as 'employee behavior', 'employee
satisfaction' and 'job satisfaction'
(Mumford, 1972).
Definition. Kevin Kruse, author
of Employee Engagement 2.0, defined
employee engagement (EE) as "the
emotional commitment the employee
has to the organization and its goals"
(Kruse, 2012, p. 1). According to
Towers Watson (2010), a leading international
professional services company, employee
engagement is the amount of "discretionary
effort" (p. 2) employees put
into their work. The Gallup Organization,
a research-based performance management
consulting company, has conducted
more than 30 years of research on
employee engagement and it defines
employee engagement as "the individual's
involvement and satisfaction with,
as well as enthusiasm for, work"
(Balain & Sparrow, 2009, p.8).
In 2010, Shuck and Wollard studied
140 articles published between 1990
and 2008 to determine consistencies
and differences in EE definitions.
Their research confirmed a 2006 Conference
Board report concluding that employee
engagement lacks a consistent definition.
This was underscored by Doherty (2010)
who asserted, "[E]mployee engagement
is one of those often talked about
but rarely understood concepts"
(p. 32).
However, researchers do concur that
"employee engagement is not just
about having enthusiastic, happy workers"
(Richman, 2006, p. 36); EE entails
"an emotional connection to the
organization, a passion for work and
feelings of hope about the future
within the organization" (Gross,
2007, p. 3). Other characteristics
of employee engagement that researchers
seem to agree on include: loyalty,
advocacy, trust, and job satisfaction
(Ames, 2012).
For the purpose of this study, employee
engagement is defined as "the
emotional commitment the employee
has to the organization and its goals"
(Kruse, 2012, p.1).
Importance of Employee Engagement.
Research indicates there is a
positive relationship between employee
engagement and organizational performance
(Aon Hewitt, 2012). Research also
suggests that engaged employees are
(a) more productive (Clampitt &
Downs, 1993), (b) innovative (Linke
& Zerfass, 2011) and (c) have
increased psychological wellbeing
(Robertson & Cooper, 2010) and
EE is linked to (a) employee retention,
(b) employee performance, and (c)
organizational profitability (Balain
& Sparrow, 2009; Hughes &
Rog, 2008; Macey & Schneider,
2008).
Furthermore, research has shown there
is a mutually beneficial relationship
between EE and organizational profitability
(Towers Watson, 2010). The Hay Group
noted, "[I]n good times engagement
is bolstered by high profits, in difficult
times, engagement drives up profits"
(2012, n.p.). A study conducted by
Gallup in 2012 on a large number of
international organizations and their
employees from various industries
established "that employee engagement
strongly relates to key organizational
outcomes in any economic climate"
(Gallup, 2012, n.p.). The effects
of employee engagement on outcomes
have been found to include:
25% lower turnover (in high-turnover
organizations)
65% lower turnover (in low-turnover
organizations)
48% fewer safety incidents
41% fewer quality incidents
(defects)
21% higher productivity
22% higher profitability
Drivers. A survey study(1)
by MSW Research and Dale Carnegie
Training involving 1,500 employees
in the United States explored the
key drivers of employee engagement.
The researchers concluded there are
three main drivers of employee engagement:
(a) "relationship with immediate
supervisor, (b) belief in leadership,
and (c) pride in working for the company"
(Dale Carnegie & Associates, 2012,
p. 2). Additional studies by Gallup
(2008, 2010, 2012) found the following
to be key drivers to employee engagement
Encouragement from superiors
Work-life balance
Belief in the mission and vision
of the organization
Praise and recognition
Sense of concern for well-being
Adequate pay and benefits
Well-defined job expectations
Resource sufficiency
Opportunities to use skills
A 2013 analysis of 28 consultancy-conducted
research studies indicated the main
non-financial drivers of employee
engagement most frequently mentioned
included meaningful work, manager
support, and recognition and appreciation.
(Pascoe, 2013)
Although there may be areas of concordance,
researchers have stated there is "no
definitive all-purpose list of engagement
drivers" (CIPD, 2007, p. 2).
While pay and benefits motivate employees,
researchers state that they are not
effective employee engagement drivers
(Branham, 2005; Devi, 2009; Campbell
& Smith, 2010). Maslow (1954)
emphasized the importance of individuals
having a sense of belonging (i.e.,
engagement).
According to a study by the Kenexa
Research Institute (2012) that surveyed
employees in 40 countries, employees
are engaged in a similar manner. While
the ways of engagement may be different
to better suit cultural sensitivities,
an employee's needs and psychological
motivations remain constant (Hofstede
Centre, 2013).
History. A look into the history
of employee engagement reveals that
in the 1940s employee engagement was
associated with entertaining employees.
In the 1950s employee engagement was
correlated with informing employees,
which then became persuading employees
in the 1960s. EE shifted to employee
satisfaction in the 1970s and in the
1980s employee engagement was likened
to open communication and commitment.
In the 1990s and 2000s, the relationship
between employee engagement and effectiveness
emerged (HayGroup, 2012).
The employee-employer relationship
first emerged in 1911 when Frederick
Taylor published his theory of Scientific
Management. Taylor's theory linked
employee motivation with organizational
profit and monetary rewards: when
employees produce more, they increase
the organization's profits and, in
return, make more money (Taylor, 1911).
In 1959, Erving Goffman, a sociologist
and writer, was the first to describe
the act of engaging in the workplace
in his book The Presentation of Self
in Everyday Life (Shanmugan &
Krishnaveni, 2012). He used the word
"embracement" to describe
people's attachment and investment
in their jobs. Goffman (1959) defined
employee engagement (embracement)
as the "spontaneous involvement
in the role and visible investment
of attention and muscular effort"
(p. 90).
William Kahn, a pioneering researcher,
was the first to use the term "employee
engagement" in his 1990 Academy
of Management Journal article, Psychological
Conditions of Personal Engagement
and Disengagement at Work. The interview-based
study explored situations at work
when people personally engaged or
"express and employ their personal
selves" and disengaged or "withdraw
and defend their personal selves"
(Kahn, 1990, p. 693). Kahn (1990)
defined engagement as "the simultaneous
employment and expression of a person's
'preferred self' in task behaviours
that promote connections to work and
to others, personal presence, and
active full role performances"
(p. 700).
A decade later, Maslach and Schaufeli
(2001) asserted that factors that
lead to employee engagement include
a feasible workload, rewards and recognition,
a sense of control, supportive colleagues,
meaningful values, and justice.
Although employee engagement has been
identified as one of the greatest
concerns for organizations in the
coming century (Leadership Insights,
2011), recent research has indicated
that only 30% to 60% of employees
are actively engaged, making disengaged
employees "one of the biggest
threats facing businesses" (MacLeod
& Clarke, 2009; The Economist
Intelligence Unit, 2011, p. 7).
Employee Engagement in the United
Arab Emirates. Towers Watson's
2012 Global Workforce study uncovered
that 65% of employees in 28 countries
are not fully engaged in their work
and that 54% of employees in the Gulf
Cooperation Council are not engaged.
In this study which aimed to help
companies understand the factors that
affect employee performance by measuring
engagement, retention and productivity,
the 1,000 employee respondents from
UAE organizations revealed the top
five drivers of engagement in the
UAE are communication, leadership,
benefits, image, and empowerment.
These findings were corroborated by
the Kenexa Research Institute (2010)
which stated that "strengthening
leadership with messages of inspiring
and promising futures " (p. 1)
is a priority when it comes to engaging
UAE nationals (Khaleej Times, 2009
).
Organizations in the United Arab Emirates
(UAE) are taking notice of employee
engagement. In 2007, Abu Dhabi Commercial
Bank collaborated with Zarca Interactive,
a leading provider of research solutions,
to create an employee engagement survey
that was specifically designed for
the UAE (Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank,
2007)(2).
The increasing interest in employee
engagement in the UAE is also evident
in the Dubai Airports employee engagement
program that began in 2012. Dubai
Airports hired Start JudgeGill, one
of the United Kingdom's top design
agencies, to undertake an employee
engagement program to inspire and
engage their 3,400 employees from
51 different nationalities (Start
JudgeGill, 2012). This attention on
employee engagement is not unique
to the UAE as evidenced that the MENA
HR Excellence Awards has a category
for Best Employee Engagement.
Employee Disengagement. Kahn
(1990) defined employee disengagement
as "the uncoupling of selves
from work roles" (p. 694). According
to Gallup (2013), there are two types
of disengaged employees: "not
engaged" and "actively disengaged"
(p. 4). "Not engaged employees
are essentially 'checked out'. They
are sleepwalking through their workday,
putting time, but not energy or passion,
into their work. Actively disengaged
employees are not just unhappy at
work; they are busy acting out their
unhappiness. Every day, these workers
undermine what their engaged co-workers
accomplish" (Gallup, 2006). Unengaged
employees and actively disengaged
employees are emotionally disconnected
from their work and are less likely
to be productive (Ford, 2013).
A study by Dale Carnegie & Associates
(2012) stated that the number one
factor prompting disengagement is
"relationship with immediate
supervisor" (p. 2). Research
also found that lack of trust in management
is a key factor in employee disengagement
(Peoplemetrics, 2011). A study by
Right Management/Manpower reported
that 94% of employees who indicated
that organizational change was poorly
handled by management were disengaged;
good communication with employees
was a major factor in whether employees
felt the change was handled well (Peoplemetrics,
2011). A disconnection between the
employee and the organizational vision
and purpose can also cause employee
disengagement (Peoplemetrics, 2011).
According to a report by Blessing
White (2011), lack of opportunities
to grow or advance is also a major
cause of employee disengagement.
Although organizations recognize that
employee disengagement is one of their
biggest threats, only a few companies
address the problem (The Economist
Intelligence Unit, 2011). Employee
disengagement impacts employee retention
(Branham, 2005), absence rates (CBI,
2012), and decreases productivity
(Gallup, 2006).
Internal Communication
Internal communication (IC) is a powerful
tool. Bill Gates (2000) once said,
"[L]ike a human being, a company
has to have an internal communication
mechanism, a 'nervous system', to
coordinate its actions" (p. 22).
The study of IC is one of the fastest
growing areas in the communication
field (Donaldson & Eyre, 2000)
and is part of the wider field of
corporate communication (Welch &
Jackson, 2007).
Communication. Clutterbuck
and Hirst (2003) defined communication
as "meaningful interaction between
two or more people" (p. xxi).
Barrett (2006) stated, "The basis
of any relationship is communication.
Without communication - be it sign
language, body language, e-mail, or
face-to-face conversation - there
is no connection and hence no relationship"
(p. 175). According to O'Neill (2011),
Leaders use communication to establish,
build, and strengthen relationships
(or to negate or weaken them) (Collins,
2001; Denning, 2007; Rowe, 1990) and
from this to influence follower feelings,
beliefs, thoughts, and practice. Flanagin
and Waldeck (2004) positioned communication
as essential for affiliation building
in organizations. (p. 38)
Lauring (2011) wrote,
[C]ommunication is a mechanism through
which groups are created, maintained
and modified (Scott, 1997)...In other
words, not only the level of comprehension
but also the intentions and positions
of groups and individuals affect the
sharing of information and the building
of relationships that could be the
outcome of a communicative encounter
(see Battilana, 2006). Accordingly,
effective communication depends not
only on the skills of organization
members but also on group and intergroup
dynamics (Weick, Sutcliffe, &
Obstfeld, 2005). (p. 235)
Researchers posit communication happens
on two-levels: the content/cognitive
and the relational/affective (Hall
& Lord, 1995; Madlock, 2008).
The content levels of a message communicate
information while its relational levels
communicate feelings (Adler &
Elmhorst, 2008). The relational aspects
of a message are often conveyed non-verbally.
The content aspects of a message are
most frequently conveyed verbally.
Definition. In the business
context, IC is defined as "all
formal and informal communication
taking place internally at all levels
of an organization" (Kalla, 2005,
p. 304). Kevin Ruck (2012), founding
director of PR Academy, defined internal
communication as "corporate level
information provided to all employees
and the concurrent provision of opportunities
for all employees to have a say about
important matters that is taken seriously
by line managers and senior managers"
(para. 4).
Development. The concept of
internal communication has been around
for more than a century. The earliest
documented evidence of internal communication
in an organization dates back to the
1840s when employees developed and
distributed internal newsletters (Ruck,
2012). The introduction of the telegraph
in the 1830s and the telephone in
the 1870s changed the pace of internal
communication by supplanting slower
channels of communication (Luther,
2009) such as post-by-sea, horse,
and carrier pigeon (Luther, 2009).
From the 1840s to the1940s, internal
communication was predominated by
internal newsletters and magazines
with articles by top management (Ruck,
2013). A top-to-bottom, one-way communication
model prevailed, where information
cascaded down to employees, and the
upward movement of ideas from junior
employees was stymied.
In 1942, the first book on internal
communication, Sharing Information
with Employees by Heron, was published
(CiprinsideUK, 2012). Heron (1942)
wrote,
the first element [in sharing information]
is the understanding by employees
that facts about the enterprise are
not being concealed from them. The
knowledge that they can get the information
they want is more important than any
actual information that can be given
to them
the program should be
a continuous one, a method of conduct
rather than a campaign
it must
not become an institution apart from
the actual work or operation of the
enterprise. (p. 75)
The idea of two-way communication
between employees and their employer
proposed by Heron is applicable and
encouraged today.
In the 1990s, new tools for internal
communications emerged. Senior executives
started using town hall meetings,
voicemail and e-mail to communicate
with stakeholders (Luther, 2009).
Organizations are now using instant
messaging for departmental and informal
internal communication (Vanover, 2008);
recent advancements in technologies
have resulted in the rise of new internal
communication channels (Horomia, 2007).
The Internet facilitates a two-way
communication model (Luther, 2009).
Recently, Internal Communications
in many organizations have moved from
being part of the Human Resources
department to directly reporting to
top management (Luther, 2009). This
is evidence of a change in perception
of the importance of internal communication.
David Ferrabee, the Managing Director
of Change and Internal Communications
at Hill & Knowlton, recognized
this shift in the role of internal
communications: "15-20 years
ago very few businesses had someone
in the company with 'Internal Communications'
in their title. Today almost all FTSE
100 (Financial Times Stock Exchange
Index) firms do. And Fortune 500,
too" (Luther, 2009 , Recent Past
section, para. 1).
Channels. The channel is the
medium used by the sender to send
the message. Media richness theory
(MRT) implies that channels can be
ranked according to their degree of
richness (Daft & Lengel, 1986).
Channel richness is the medium's capability
to carry "multiple communication
cues, provide instant feedback, and
offer a personal focus to the communication"
(Sullivan, 1995, p. 49). Flatley (1999)
stated, "Media richness theory
ranks communication channels along
a continuum of richness, defining
highly rich channels as those handling
multiple inherent cues simultaneously,
such as using feedback, nonverbal
cues, and several senses simultaneously"
(p. 1).
Social presence theory (SPT) builds
on the richness concept of the MRT.
It adds "the perception of the
people who use the media and their
evaluations of the "social presence"
of each channel" (Sullivan, 1995,
p. 50). Researchers note social presence
is the ability of a channel to support
the social relationship between interactants
(Short, Williams, & Christie,
1976). Social presence theory assumes
that interactants value a channel
according to its 'psychological closeness'.
According to Kurpitz and Cowell (2011),
[S]ocial presence refers to the degree
to which a medium conveys the psychological
perception that other people are physically
present and suggests that media that
are capable of providing a greater
sense of intimacy and immediacy will
be perceived as having a greater degree
of social presence (Short et al.,
1976). (p. 58)
According to Rice (1993), Media Appropriateness
integrates channel richness and social
presence. The purpose of this theory
is to predict channel use. Rice (1993)
ranked media appropriateness from
most to least to be face-to-face,
telephone, video, letter and email.
Researchers have concurred that channel
features are not objective but subjective
and are shaped through the interactants'
experience with the channel, the topic,
the context, and other interactants
(Carlson & Zmud, 1999). D'Urso
and Rains (2008) stated that these
four areas impact user's views of
channel richness. O'Neill (2011) noted
that choosing the channel of communication
depends on the message, the sender,
and the target audience.
Channels of communication include
face-to-face, telephone, voice mail,
email, letters, presentations, reports,
and intranet.
Face-to-face. This communication
channel is considered the richest
information channel "because
a person can perceive verbal and nonverbal
communication, including posture,
gestures, tone of voice, and eye contact,
which can aid the perceiver in understanding
the message being sent" (Waltman,
2011, n.p.). This channel conveys
the greatest quantity of communication
data.
A study by Dewhirst in 1971 found
that face-to-face communication was
preferred over written communication.
This channel is considered effective
for reducing communication breakdown
because "in face-to-face conversation,
feedback is more easily perceived"
(Debashish & Das, 2009, p. 38).
O'Neill (2011) stated that Emirati
females have a preference for face-to-face
communication because it was the fastest
medium and decreases communication
breakdown. A study by Pascoe (2013)
in Qatar explored the link between
internal communication and employee
engagement; it stated that face-to-face
comunication was the most preferred
way of personal business communication.
Telephone. The telephone is
an oral channel. The telephone is
a communication channel that is widely
used and considered an information
rich channel. It provides similar
benefits of face-to-face but not the
visual cues.
A study by Morley and Stephenson in
1969 concluded that arguments were
more successfully presented over the
telephone than face-to-face. This
channel shares the same benefits as
face-to-face and "reduces time-space
constraints" (O'Neill, 2011,
p. 47). Researchers noticed "fewer
interruptions, shorter pauses, shorter
utterances, less filled pauses, and
a greater amount of speech in telephone
than in the face-to-face channel"
(Housel & Davis, 1977, p. 51).
Participants in O'Neill's 2011 study
of Emirati females stated that this
channel provided instanteous feedback.
Voice mail. Voice mail is considered
suitable for sending short messages
that do not require instant feedback
(Reinsch & Beswick, 1990). This
channel is also useful when the sender
wants to avoid contact with the receiver
(Hiemstra, 1982).
Email. Email is the most common
written communication channel in the
workplace and the second most frequently
used channel (Barrett, 2006). This
channel's main advantage is its speed
of transmission (Berry, 2011); email
can "carry more information faster,
at a lower cost, and to more people
while also offering increased data
communality" (Flanagin &
Waldeck, 2004, p. 142). Berry (2011)
asserted that email enables documentation
because of its archiving features.
A study in 1984 by Trauth, Kwan and
Barber concluded that "a major
reason to employ electronic messaging
systems is to increase productivity
among knowledge workers by increasing
the efficiency and effectiveness of
internal communications" as it
enhances the flow of communication
(p. 124). On the other hand, email
lacks non-verbal cues. Non-verbal
cues are a key way to determine the
affective aspects of a message (Alder
& Elmhorst, 2008). Stevens and
McElhill (2000) stated, "written
communication is not the best medium
for transmitting messages in every
situation and it is often not the
best way to motivate employees. Yet
email is often employed as if it was
the most effective medium for every
occasion as though it should automatically
motivate and engage employees"
(n.p). According to O'Neill (2011),
Emiratis females reported that email
is the most frequently used communication
channel. The participants in O'Neill's
study stated that email communication
could be used for (a) archiving meetings
or as a reference for employees who
may not recall accurately, (b) archiving
for organizational documents such
as performance evaluations, (c) archiving
for defensive mechanisms when the
participants were accused of wrongdoing,
(d) providing detailed information,
(e) increasing transparency, (f) creating
an esprit de corps by increasing awareness
of team member's tasks, and (g) enhancing
productivity by creating awareness
of all activities so that employees
are aware if there are areas of overlap.
Pascoe (2013) stated that email was
the most preferred communication channel.
Summary. A study by Newsweaver
stated that face-to-face, intranet,
and email are the most used internal
communications channels (2013). The
study reported that the use of print
publication has decreased.
Choosing the appropriate communication
channel is essential as it impacts
the effectiveness of communication.
Barry and Fulmer (2004) asserted congruence
between the communication goal (e.g.,
relationship building, information
exchange, sender ease) and the channel
employed is key to effective communication.
Short et al (1976) indicated different
tasks (e.g., information exchange,
conflict resolution, decision making)
need different channels. Sullivan
(1995) observed that preferences were
related to the type of task and in
some situations email was preferred
over oral communication channels.
Jones and Pittman (1982) indicated
the nature of the task impacts channel
selection. For example, motivating
an employee may require an inspirational
appeal to induce the employee's emotion;
this will need a channel that is rich
in non-verbal cues like face-to-face.
Reinsch and Beswick (1990) asserted
rich channels support social relationships;
therefore, when a relationship is
important, richer channels should
be used. In line with MRT and SPT,
Berk and Clampitt (1991) supported
the use of oral channels for relational
messages and written channels for
content-orient messages. Berk and
Clampitt (1991) asserted, "Because
communication channels have certain
attributes, senders must be sure that
their intentions are congruent with
the dynamics of the channel"
(p. 3). In agreement, Kurpitz and
Cowell (2011) noted, "some media
(e.g., videoconferencing or telephone)
have greater social presence than
others (e.g., e-mail), and the use
of media higher in social presence
should be important for social tasks
such as building relationships (Robert
& Dennis, 2005)" (p. 58).
In Kurpitz and Cowell's 2011 study,
subordinates identified specific types
of messages require specific channels.
For example, participants believed
confidential information should be
communicated face-to-face (Kurpitz
& Cowell, 2011).
Channel selection is important because
media choice has been shown to impact
organizational performance (Markus,
1994). Reinsch and Beswick (1990)
remarked, "Decisions about channel
are important since they help determine
the impact of specific messages and
the effectiveness of message initiators.
In the aggregate, such decisions help
shape the effectiveness, efficiency,
and ambience of an organization"
(p. 801). The 2013 Newsweaver study
also revealed that the most effective
internal communication channels are
intranet, email, and face-to-face
communication.
Culture
Lustig and Koester (1999) have posited,
"People from different cultures
whenever the degree of difference
between them is sufficiently large
and important that it creates dissmilar
interpretations and expectations about
what are regarded as competent communication
behaviours (p. 58). Research also
confirmed that when interactants have
"different paradigms, norms,
standards, and values", they
have different cultures (Phan, Siegel,
& Wright, 2009; p331). Jameson
(2007) asserted that culture should
include culture groups such as vocation
and generation.
According to Edward Hall (1959), "Culture
is communication and communication
is culture" (p. 169), where differences
in communication styles represent
different cultural frameworks (Adler
& Elmhorst, 2008). Research indicated
that cultural values influence communication
behaviors (Morand, 2003). This notion
is supported by the link between individualist/collectivist
cultures (Hofstede, 1980) and high-context/low-context
communication cultures (Hall, 1976).
Individualist cultures have a preference
for low context communication while
collectivist cultures tend to prefer
high-context communication. Thomas
(2008) asserted, "[C]ollective
cultures are 'High Context', that
is, more implicitly expressed through
intonation, euphemism and body language
than in the coded explicit part of
the message (Hall 1976; Hofstede 1997;
Loosemore 1999)" (p. 86).
Limaye and Victor (1991) noted,
Japan, which has access to the latest
communication technologies, relies
more on face-to-face or oral communication
than the written mode. We think that
the determining factor is not the
degree of industrialization, but whether
the country falls into low-context
or high context cultures as Edward
Hall defines the categories (Hall,
1959). (p. 286)
O'Neill (2011) stated, "Culture
also shapes perceptions of channels
and channel features and consequently
selection and use" (p. 75). Following
this, it is safe to assume that national-level
culture norms will influence channel
selection. For instance, groups from
collectivist cultures demonstrate
a greater preference for rich and
high social presence channels than
groups from individualist cultures
(Hara, Shachaf, & Hew, 2007).
Generation. It is widely known
that people from the same generation
often share the same cultural value,
beliefs and expectations (Kuppershmidt,
2000; Twenge & Campbell, 2008).
Walker (2009) asserted, "Gen
Y prefer to communicate synchronously"
(p. 3). Research stated that Generation
Y employees prefer more direct communication
(Johnson Controls, 2010). Limaye and
Victor (1991) asserted different perceptions
of time influence perceptions of immediacy
of feedback.
Gender. Researchers have postulated
the difference between males and females
can be so great that males and females
can be belonging to different cultures
(Maltz & Borker, 1982; O'Neill,
2011). Research indicated that men
and women communicate differently
(Tannen, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1996) because,
as children, they are socialized to
do so (Maltz &Borker, 1982). Several
researchers proved that men and women
are culturally different (Borisoff
& Merril, 1992; Gilligan, 1982;
Lakoff, 1975; O'Neill, 2011). Studies
on gender and channel use have been
scant (O'Neill, 2011). However, a
study by Lind in 2001 established,
"Communication channel richness
does appear to have cultural/gender
differences which in turn lead to
differences in channel usage"
(p. 238). Gefen and Straub's (1997)
study of three nations (Japan, USA,
and Switzerland) found that female
and male perceptions of email varied
but not their use.
United Arab Emirates
The United Arab Emirates (UAE), formerly
known as the Trucial States, is a
federation that consists of seven
Emirates: Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah,
Ajman, Um al-Qaiwain, Ras al-Khaima,
and Fujairah. Abu Dhabi is the largest
emirate, covering 87% of the total
area of the UAE (Abu Dhabi Government,
n.d). The UAE was formed in 1971 after
gaining independence from Britain.
Oil and gas are major drivers of the
UAE's economy. Nearly 25% of the country's
GDP is based on oil and gas output
(Central Intelligence Agency, 2013).
Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE,
controls approximately 90% of the
country's oil and gas reserves (Ministry
of Finance and Industry, n.d).
The population of the UAE in 2010
was 8.264 million with only 11.4%
being Emirati (UAEInteract, 2011).
In mid-2012, the population of Abu
Dhabi was 2.33 million; only 476,722
(20.4%) people were Emiratis (UAE
Interact, 2013).
Hofstede (1980) categorized the UAE's
culture as a collectivist one. Thomas
(2008) noted,
Within the United Arab Emirates, it
is claimed that legitimacy of a ruler
derives from consensus and consent,
and the principal of consultation
or shura is an essential part of that
system (Ministry of Information and
Culture, 2000). The operationalization
of consensus and consent has traditionally
taken place in the 'majlis' (meeting
place, council or sitting room) common
in Arab cultures (Ministry of Information
and Culture 2000; Winslow, Honein,
and Elzubeir 2002). In the 'majlis
'leaders may hold an 'openhouse' discussion
forum where individuals may forward
views for discussion and consideration
(Ministry of Information and Culture
2000). This process has also been
observed more broadly in collective
cultures whereby opinion on new issues
is formed in family conferences (Hofstede
1997, 59). (p. 85)
This demonstrates that Emiratis expect
to be a part of the decision making
process. This notion has been reinforced
by researchers from the region such
as Abdalla and Al-Humoud (2001), who
asserted, "Gulf societies endorse
typical collective values and practices
such as preference for personalised
relationships, broad and profound
influence of in-group on its members,
and limited cooperation with other
groups" (p. 511).
According to Edward Hall (1976), the
United Arab Emirates can be considered
a high-context communication culture.
Thomas (2008) posited,
Firstly, it is claimed that an oral
tradition exists in the UAE (Winslow,
Honein, and Elzubeir 2002) over a
written tradition and that an informal,
communal, 'majlis setting may best
support such a tradition. Secondly,
it has been noted that collective
cultures are 'High Context', that
is, more implicitly expressed through
intonation, euphemism and body language
than in the coded explicit part of
the message (Hall 1976; Hofstede 1997;
Loosemore 1999). Communications are
therefore 'integrally linked to the
context of relationships within which
they occur, including the history
of the interactants, their common
ground of shared understandings and
the setting of the interaction' (Smith,
Bond, and Kagitcibasi 2006, 153).
(p. 86)
Internal Communication in the United
Arab Emirates. A study conducted
by a leading communications consultancy,
Hill & Knowlton, and published
in Middle East Corporate Reputation
Watch 2008 surveyed more than 500
managers and employees in the Gulf
Cooperation Council. CEO of Hill &
Knowlton Middle East, Dave Robinson,
commented on the study indicating
that organizations in the UAE need
to work better on effectively structuring
their internal communication departments
in order to improve employee morale
and productivity (AMEinfo, 2008).
The study revealed the following key
findings about communication in organizations
in the UAE:
54% of employees feel that
their organization's business objectives
are clearly explained to them
49% of employees feel that
they do not receive the information
they need to do their job
25% of managers believe that
it is not necessary for employees
to fully understand how their job
relates to the organization's objectives
47% of employees rely on external
sources for information about their
job
7% of managers are not aware
who is responsible for internal communication
in their organization
The UAE government has recently started
concentrating on internal communication.
In 2008, the Government Communication
Office in the Ministry of Cabinet
Affairs launched its Internal Communications
Manual to promote consistent and clear
communication in UAE Federal Government
entities (UAE Interact, 2008). The
manual included guidelines on strategy
development, key messages, policies
and procedures, email templates, and
communication channels and tactics.
The Minister of Cabinet Affairs, His
Excellency Mohammad Al Gergawi, said,
"[T]he Internal Communications
Manual will generate positive results
in raising the overall performance
standards of the government"
(UAE Interact, 2008). The Secretary
General of the Ministry of Cabinet
Affairs, Najla Al Awar, announced
the UAE is particularly enthusiastic
about increasing employees' involvement
through timely internal communications
that update them on organizational
developments (UAE Interact, 2008).
Al Awar indicated that the Internal
Communications Manual will serve as
a catalyst for effective engagement
and interaction between all employees
(UAE Interact, 2008).
Employee Engagement and Internal
Communication
Research has shown internal communication
is a key driver of employee engagement
(MacLeod & Clarke, 2009; CIPD,
2012; Ruck, 2012). According to Towers
Watson (2010), internal communication
is one way to connect an organization
to its employees and also to connect
employees who are generationally and
culturally different. Bleeker and
Hill (2013) asserted that good internal
communication in an organization can
motivate and engage employees because
IC delivers a 'clear line of sight',
creates employee engagement, effects
the external reputation of the organization,
allows employees to understand what
changes are happening and how they
should respond, and provides regulation
and compliance because employees will
be aware of all the rules and regulations.
It is important for organizations
to be aware of the factors and tools
that engage employees (Accor Services
, 2008). Gallup (2008, 2010, 2012)
found the following communicative
activities to be key drivers to employee
engagement
Encouragement from superiors
Praise and recognition
Well-defined job expectations
Powis (2012) affirmed that employee
engagement is the result of several
financial and non-financial factors,
one being internal communication in
the form of recognition. The top drivers
of employee engagement acknowledged
by the Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development (CIPD) emphasize the
importance of internal communication
in employee engagement. According
to CIPD (2012), the two top drivers
of employee engagement are having
opportunities to communicate upwards
and feeling well informed about organizational
developments. Managers' abilities
to communicate internally are considered
key predictors of employee engagement
(Barrett, 2006; McKinsey, 2010; Welch,
2011; The Economist Intelligence Unit,
2011; Xu & Thomas, 2011; CIPD,
2012). Multiple research has proven
that a manager's ability to effectively
communicate with employees along with
encouraging two-way communication
is more important than pay and benefits
to create employee engagement (Hertzberg,
1959; Clutterbuck & Hirst, 2002;
Barrett, 2006; CIPD, 2012; Jelf Group,
2013).
3: Methodology
The purpose of this exploratory study
was to further understanding of, and
contribute to, the scant research
on employee engagement and internal
communication in the United Arab Emirates.
The study aimed to determine (a) which
internal communication channels contribute
to engaged employees' sense of engagement
and (b) how these channels do this.
Data were collected via a one-hour
long interview with each participant.
Open-ended, semi-structured questions
were used to gather participants'
points-of-view.
Data were analyzed for thematic content.
The goal of the analysis was to ascertain
which communication channels engaged
participants and the reasons they
had for choosing these communication
channels.
This chapter begins with discussion
of methodological fit followed by
a review of interview-based research
methods. The chapter ends with a presentation
of the methods utilized in this study
including data collection, instrumentation
and ethical concerns.
Methodological Fit
One-to-one, face-to-face, semi-structured
interviews were the primary method
of data collection.
Cachia and Millward (2011) asserted
that face-to-face interviews are "long
established as the leading means of
conducting qualitative research"
(p. 265). Krueger and Casey (2009)
indicated that interviews "can
provide insight into complicated topics
when opinions or attitudes are conditional
or when the area of concern relates
to a multifaceted behavior or motivation"
(p. 19).
Advantages of the interview format
used include
researcher access to communication
rich elements that provide social
cues such as body language, hand gestures
and voice tone (Gable, 1994; Opdenakker,
2006; Conrad & Poole, 2012)
participant involvement on
the intellectual and emotional levels
(Byres & Wilcox, 1991; Fontana
& Frey, 2005; O'Neill, 2011)
data depth (Stokes & Bergin,
2006; O'Neill, 2011)
plasticity in questioning (O'Neill,
2011)
discreetness that supports
psychological safety for participants
(O'Neill, 2011)
flexibility of time
Krueger and Casey (2009) noted "[t]he
open-ended approach allows the subject
ample opportunity to comment, to explain
and to share experiences and attitudes"
(p. 3) and it allows "individuals
to respond without setting boundaries
or providing them clues for potential
response categories" (p. 3).
As such, interviews "contribute
to the emergence of a more complete
picture of the participants' working
environment and their everyday practices"
(Schnurr, 2009, p.18).
The disadvantages and limitations
of the interview format employed include
(a) the possibility of non-conformity
between interviews (Wimpenny &
Gass, 2000), (b) limiting relevant
information from emerging due to over-structuring
of the interview (Charmaz, 1994),
(c) lack of generalizability (Fontana
& Frey, 2005; Krueger & Casey,
2009; Stokes & Bergin, 2006; O'Neill,
2011), and (d) selection bias.
The study aimed to use the participants'
perceptions to develop an understanding
of which internal communication channels
engage employees and how these channels
promote employee engagement. A review
of the literature showed that interview-based
methods were parallel to the aims
of the study. This assertion is supported
as William Kahn, who wrote the seminal
article on employee engagement, used
the interview method in his groundbreaking
1990 Academy of Management study.
A review of the socio-cultural context
corroborated the use of the interview
method. The one-to-one, face-to-face,
researcher-respondent interview fits
the socio-cultural needs of participants
from honor-based cultures such as
Emiratis. O'Neill (2011) posited,
"Three aspects of the interview
method salient to interview-based
research conducted in honor-based
cultures such as the United Arab Emirates
are: psychological safety, depth,
and flexibility" (p. 97). Haring
(2008) noted, "Qualitative methodology
is especially useful in areas where
there are limitations in the market
knowledge base. These include small,
close-knit communities". These
descriptors have been applied to the
UAE by a variety of noted researchers
such as Bristol-Rhys (2010).
Participants
The screens for participant eligibility
were (a) ability to participate in
English; (b) above 18 years of age
and below 60 years; (c) Emirati; (d)
working in the organization for more
than six months; (e) willingness to
participate in one face-to-face interview;
(f) willingness to have their contributions
to the study publicly disseminated;
(g) at least a high-school graduate;
and (h) identification as an engaged
employee. Because I had an existing
professional relationship with the
participants, I was able to identify
engaged employees.
The participant group consisted of
sixteen Emiratis that are employed
at a federal organization in the UAE:
four females and four males; five
from Generation X (people born between
1964-1978) and eleven from Generation
Y (people born between 1979-1991).
Each participant was given an informed
consent form, which had been approved
by Zayed University's Institutional
Research Review Board for ethical
clearance. The form stated the topic
of the study (the link between employee
engagement and internal communication).
It also indicated that participants
were not required to participate,
and, if they did participate, they
could withdraw from the study at any
time without penalty. All participants
of the study signed the form and participated
fully.
Sampling
Although the research sample was small
(N=16), Marshall (1996) indicated
this does not necessarily affect validity
or reliability in qualitative studies,
"
.an appropriate size for
a qualitative study is one that adequately
answers the research question"
(p. 523).
The sampling method was non-random,
convenience sampling. Convenience
sampling is the intentional choice
of an informant because of their qualities,
which allows the researcher to source
people who are knowledgeable and willing
to provide information (Tongco, 2007).
Due to the size and nature of the
organization as well as socio-cultural
factors that inhibit participation
in research and the specificity of
the screens, convenience sampling
was the most appropriate option. Employees
with whom the researcher had an existing
relationship (that encouraged openness,
honesty and disclosure) and who were
identified as engaged were targeted
for selection. Marshall (1996) noted,
"Qualitative researchers recognize
that some informants are 'richer'
that others and that these people
are more likely to provide insight
and understanding for the researcher.
Choosing someone at random to answer
a qualitative question would be analogous
to randomly asking a passer-by how
to repair a broken down car, rather
than asking a garage mechanic-the
former might have a good stab, but
asking the latter is likely to be
more productive" (p. 523)
Tremblay (1957) affirmed that in order
to acquire that best qualitative data,
it is imperative to have the best
'informants'.
Research Site
The organization currently employs
approximately one hundred and sixty
employees. It is a government organization
that is high-security. It is physically
compact. It is situated in one floor
but in two separate buildings. The
physical location of the interview
is a critical element that needed
to be addressed. Robert Merton indicated,
"[P]eople revealed sensitive
information when they felt they were
in a safe, comfortable place with
people like themselves" (as cited
in Krueger & Casey, 2009, p. 3).
For this reason, and to maintain confidentiality,
the interviews took place in a secluded
but familiar meeting room within the
workplace. As the findings of the
study directly relate to the success
of the organization and fell under
the purview of the researcher's duties
at the organization, permission was
given to interview the participants
on the premises during working hours.
The Internal Communication function
in the organization is located within
the Communication Department. The
organization employs the usual internal
communication channels such as email,
a quarterly internal newsletter, plasma
screen notice boards, intranet postings,
posters, and occasionally internal
events. In the past, the organization
had a minimum of three 'town hall'
meetings each year. The town hall
meetings still take place but are
less frequent. In addition, employees
used to independently organize weekly
lunches for all staff; however, these
no longer occur because the organization
grew.
Design
Choosing a suitable research methodology
took into account several factors
that were highlighted by Blanche,
Durrheim, and Painter (2007). The
factors included the research purpose,
theoretical paradigm, context, and
research techniques.
Phases
The study consisted of four phases:
foregrounding, pre-interview, data
collection, and member checking.
Foregrounding. To provide guidance
throughout the research, I began researching
topics related to the primary focus
of this research study approximately
two months before data collection.
Pre-interview. Before finalizing
the interview questions, the research
team reflected on question phrasing
and tips on how to get the most useful
information during interviews. The
team also conducted three mock interviews
to improve interviewing and field
note taking skills.
Figure 1: Factors of research design
(Blanche, Durrheim, & Painter,
2007)
Data Collection. The research
team opted for semi-structured interviewing
using open-ended questions to learn
about participants perceptions
and opinions about (a) which internal
communication channels contribute
to engaged employees sense of
engagement and (b) how these channels
do this. Participants were sent the
informed consent form one week prior
to their interviews. Interviews lasted
approximately one hour per participant.
All interviews took place face-to-face.
Member Checking. After the
data analysis was finalized, the data
and analysis were provided to the
participants for member checking.
Gordon (1996) emphasized the importance
of cooperation between the researcher
and participant during the data analysis
process. About one week after the
participants received the data analysis,
the participants were contacted by
telephone for their comments and feedback
on the findings.
Questions
The interview questions (Appendix
A) focused on the following: (a) which
internal communication channels contribute
to engaged employees' sense of engagement?
and (b) How these channels do this?
To generate rich data, participants
were asked a series of open-ended
questions that explored their use
of communication channels in their
day-to-day life and the workplace.
Questions at the beginning of the
interview were broad and general,
as the interview progressed, questions
began telescoping to become more focused
to the research question. The interview
questions can be categorized into
three categories; "(a) descriptive,
(b) comparative, and (c) relationship"
(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006, p.
480). The first set of the questions
was descriptive and focused on demographics
such as age, gender and tenure with
the organization. The second set of
questions was comparative and asked
participants to compare communication
channels that they use in their day-to-day
life and in the workplace. The final
set of questions can be categorized
as relationship questions. The final
set asked participants about the internal
communication channels that make them
feel involved and connected in the
workplace (and how) and which channels
they use when they want others to
feel involved and connected in the
workplace (and why). Each interview
began with an informal chat, participants
who had questions regarding the study
has an open opportunity to ask them
then. The concluding questions of
the interview were: 'Is there anything
we didn't talk about that you think
we should?' and 'Are there any questions
that you want us to go back and revisit'.
This was to ensure that all pertinent
information was presented.
Answers
In line with Emirati cultural mores
and to protect the participants' anonymity,
the findings were associated with
the group rather than identifiable
to particular participant. Similar
to Al Jenaibi (2010), when referring
to a contribution of a participant,
this was done using a code that has
no relation to the participants' names.
Furthermore, some data and analysis
were not included in the study to
protect the participants' identity.
Instrumentation
Field notes were used as a method
of data collection. Audio and video
recording was ruled out as an option
due to socio-cultural norms and privacy
preferences of the participants. This
decision was supported by others who
have conducted research in the region.
To encourage openness in her study
of Omani female leaders, Al Lamky
(2006) did not tape record interviews
but she did take hand-written notes
while Bristol-Rhys (2010) noted, "[T]he
women I have talked with have all
expressed their opinions quite openly,
none wanted to be identified in the
book, or indeed to be identifiable"
(p. 23). In addition, Al-Jenaibi (2010)
concluded, "Conducting research
in the UAE is often difficult
doing
interviews with many employees must
be completely confidential. For example,
many females will not provide their
names and work places in order to
be able to speak freely" (p.
72).
In addition to cultural congruence,
main advantages of field notes are
their cost, reliability, and simplicity:
no expensive equipment to purchase
and set up (O'Neill, 2011).
The disadvantages of field notes occur
in the researcher such as incomplete
recollection of the participants'
answers and bias. As mentioned by
Krueger and Casey (2009), many "don't
know how to take effective field notes.
They record impressions, interesting
ideas, perhaps a few choice words
or notes
These notes are fragmented
and incomplete for analysis"
(p. 94). Jasper (1994) noted the need
for researchers to develop skills
that enable the collection of data
without "contaminating"
(p. 311) it. Krueger and Casey (2009)
emphasized, "The interviewer
encourages comments of all types-positive
and negative. The interviewer is careful
not to make judgments about the responses
and to control body language that
might communicate approval or disapproval"
(p.6). Byres and Wilcox (1991) advised
interviewers to "refrain from
contributing to the discussion as
much as possible and monitor his or
her actions carefully" (p.69).
To accomplish this Gillham (2002)
advised that the interviewer should
be reflective and self-aware. For
this reason, the researchers engaged
in supervised practice before commencing
actual data collection from the study
participants.
There are two methods to formatting
field notes: "record notes and
quotes" (Krueger & Casey,
2009, p. 94) and "capture details
and rich descriptive information"
(Krueger & Casey, 2009, p. 94).
In the former method, key words and
quotes are recorded by the researcher
on different sides of a page. Field
notes for this study followed the
"notes and quotes" format.
In this study, both the participants
and one of the researchers were Emirati,
thus eliminating the need to employ
a cultural confederate.
Coding and analysis. The goal
of this study was: (1) identify which
internal communication channels contribute
to engaged employees' sense of engagement?
and (b) ascertain how these channels
promote engagement. The content of
participants' responses were analyzed
to meet the goals of this study. As
noted by Krueger and Casey (2009),
during analysis, not all questions
or answers are of the same value because
different questions have different
purposes. The amount of time and attention
given to each question should be comparative
to its importance to the main research
goals. Questions, such as opening
questions, do not need to be analyzed
(Krueger & Casey, 2009). In this
study, only the two main questions
were analyzed. The purpose of the
other questions was to relax the participants,
to allow them to 'warm-up' and to
stimulate their thinking about communication
channels and preferences.
Gillham (2000) indicated participant
discussion can be analyzed to determine
content, "Content analysis is
about organizing the substantive content
of the interview
there are two
essential strands to the analysis:
identifying those key, substantive
points; putting them into
categories" (p. 59). To undertake
this, a Key Concepts framework
was applied (Krueger & Casey,
2009, p. 125). The main purpose of
this framework was "to identify
a limited number of important ideas,
experiences, preferences that illuminate
the study" (Krueger & Casey,
2009, p. 125). As per Lincoln and
Guba's (1985) recommendation, data
were analyzed by identifying key concepts
and themes by reading and re-reading
of notes. Then, the main concepts
were coded and put into categories.
The research team developed a rank
of order of channel use for each interview
question. Channel use and justifications
could be compared across conditions.
This was the second level of analysis.
The third level of analysis was more
complex; it linked channel use and
justifications with findings from
research in the literature. It aimed
to present theoretical explanation
for channel selection.
Qualitative content analysis presented
trends of channel selection; these
were described qualitatively. The
findings in this study are presented
in narrative and statistical format
organized by question and channel.
Ethical Considerations
Two main areas that were put into
consideration while undertaking this
study: research bias and confidentiality.
To ensure the ideas presented are
the participants and notthose
of the researchers, the research team
self-monitored for bias. The team
also compared the data to existing
studies for congruence. Most importantly,
the research team focused on the aim
of the research to accurately
represent the range of views
(Krueger & Casey, 2009, p. 126).
To ensure confidentiality several
measures were put into place. Participants
were allowed to withdraw from the
study at anytime. Participants were
not required to answer a question.
Participants' answers were not audio
recorded. Participants' files were
labeled with a two-letter code unrelated
to the respondent's name. The names
of the participants were never shared.
And all data are stored securely and
require password access.
4: Presentation
of Data
The purpose of this exploratory study
was to further understanding of, and
contribute to, the scant research
on employee engagement and internal
communication in the United Arab Emirates.
The study aimed to determine which
internal communication channels contributed
to engaged employees' sense of engagement
and how these channels do this.
To obtain accurate data about the
topic of inquiry, participants described
actual internal communication channels
that they use to send and receive,
explained which channels make them
feel most connected and involved (and
how), and explained which internal
communication channels they use when
they want to make others feel connected
and involved (and why). Questions
were phrased so as not to bias participants'
responses and to gather as much information
as possible from the participants.
The categorical descriptors used throughout
the study were gender and generation.
Participants
The average participant age was 32
years. The average participant age
for the female participants was 32.35
years and the average participant
age for the male participants was
31.75 years. Three females were from
Generation X (born between 1964-1978)
and five were from Generation Y (born
between 1979 and 1991). Two males
were from Generation X and six were
from Generation Y.
Only one of the participants attended
an Arabic-medium university, the remaining
15 participants attended English-medium
universities. Four of the 16 participants
attended English-medium, post-graduate
education (i.e., Masters).
The average number of years of work
experience was 8.8 with a range between
one and 18 years. The average number
of work experience for the female
participants was 7.8 years while the
average number of work experience
for the male participants was 9.8
years. The average time worked at
the federal authority during the time
of the study was 3.06 years, with
a range of 1.4 years to 5 years. The
average time worked at the federal
authority for the female participants
was 3.5 years while the average for
the male participants was 2.5 years.
Table 2 summarizes the participants'
gender, age, professional experience,
and tenure at the target organization
distribution.
Interview Questions
Questions one to seven focused on
demographics and tenure (3).
The purpose of these questions was
to develop a context. Questions eight
and nine were about the communication
channels that the participants used
in their daily life. The purpose of
these questions was to (a) stimulate
the participants' thinking, (b) relax
the participants, and (c) to get the
participants comfortable with the
interview process. Questions ten to
15 focused on the communication channels
used by the participants in the workplace.
The purpose of these questions was
to focus the participants' responses
for the following questions and to
stimulate the participants' thinking
by comparing their responses with
what they feel are engaging communication
channels. Questions 16 and 17 focused
on internal communication and engagement
in the workplace. The purpose of this
question was to determine which channels
are perceived as engaging and how.
These questions directly related to
the purpose of the study and were
the two that were the focus of analysis.
Questions 18 and 19 focused on added
channels and comments. The purpose
of these final questions was to ensure
that the participants shared all their
experiences relevant to the study.
In this section, the most frequent
communication channels that are used
to receive and send information in
the workplace are first identified.
Next, the communication channels that
the participants prefer to receive
and send information from in the workplace
are indicated. Then, the communication
channels in the workplace that make
the participants feel most involved
and connected are presented. This
is followed by the channels the participants
identified as using in the workplace
when they want to make others feel
involved and connected. Finally, the
participants stated which communication
channels they would like to see added
in the workplace.
Some participants' answers included
more than one communication channel
per question. Hence, this will yield
percentages more than 100%.
Interview question 12. What
are the most frequent ways of communication
you receive here at the organization?
The most frequent communication channel
that the participants received information
from was email. All 16 participants
stated that email was the most frequent
channel by which they receive information.
Face-to-face was the second most frequent
channel. Overall, females were twice
as likely to receive information via
face-to-face than males were (25%
v. 12.5%). Females from Generation
Y were 4 times more likely to receive
information via face-to-face than
females from Generation X (40% v.
0%). Overall, Generation Y respondents
indicated receiving information from
a wider variety of channels than Generation
X respondents (4 channels v. 2 channels).
In addition, males from Generation
Y indicated receiving information
from a wider variety of channels than
males from Generation X (3 channels
v. 1 channel). The top four answers
in each category are displayed in
Table 3.
Interview question 13. What
are the most frequent ways of communication
you send here at the organization?
One hundred percent of the participants
stated that email was the most frequent
communication channel they used when
sending information in the workplace.
Males across both generations indicated
the use of email only as the most
frequent channel of communication
in the workplace. Overall, female
respondents indicated a wider variety
of most frequently used communication
channels than male respondents (5
channels v.1 channel). Similarly,
Generation Y respondents reported
a wider variety of channels than Generation
X respondents (5 channels v. 2 channels).
Female respondents from Generation
Y indicated more channels than female
respondents from Generation X (5 channels
v. 1 channel). The answers of each
category are displayed in Table 4.
Interview question 14. Which
ways of communication do you prefer
to receive information from? Why?
The following interview question focused
on the communication channel by which
the participants prefer to receive
information from and the reasons for
this. The most common communication
channel that participants stated as
a preference to receive information
from was e-mail. Fourteen out of the
16 (87.5%) participants indicated
that their preference for email was
because of its archiving features
and speed of transmission. F5 stated,
"Email is the easiest way of
communication. I know what the requirements
are and I have the space to reply
when I can. I can use it for future
reference and especially for record
keeping. There is no time limit to
access the information. I decide when
to reply which is when I have enough
time and space". M2 noted, "Email
acts as a tracker for data, information,
saves information, provides evidence".
The notion of utilizing email for
its documentation and archiving features
was shared by M5, M6, M7, M8, F2,
and F5.
Overall, male and female respondents
indicated their preference to receive
information by email and face-to-face
equally (87.5% and 25% respectively).
Female respondents across both generations
showed preference to the same communication
channels (email and face-to-face).
Generation Y respondents indicated
a preference for phone while Generation
X respondents did not (9% v 0%). Male
respondents from Generation Y indicated
a wider variety of preference for
communication channels by which they
receive information from than male
respondents from Generation X (3 channels
v. 1 channel). The top three answers
in each category are displayed in
Table 5.
Interview question 15. Which
ways of communication do you prefer
to send information from? Why?
The most common channel the participants
preferred to send information from
was email. Their preference to email
was due to its archiving features,
accessibility, and speed of transmission.
F6 said that using email to send information
is "...precise and it is easy
to keep everyone in the loop".
M5, M6, M8, and F2 also stated the
recordkeeping feature of the channel
as justification for its use. Female
and male respondents preferred to
send information using the same communication
channels (email, face-to-face, and
phone). There was no significant difference
in preferences across generation or
tenure. Male respondents from Generation
Y indicated their preference for face-to-face
when sending information while respondents
from Generation X did not indicate
face-to-face as a preferred channel
(40% v. 0%). Respondents who had professional
experience of more than 8.8 years
showed a higher preference to face-to-face
communication than those with professional
experience less than 8.8 years (30%
v 16.6%). Female respondents from
Generation X indicated preference
to using phones when sending information,
while female respondents from Generation
Y did not (33.3% v. 0 %). The top
three answers in each category are
displayed in Table 6.
Interview question 16. Of all
the internal communications you use,
which ones make you feel the most
involved and connected to the organization?
Why?
Approximately, 87% of the participants
stated that face-to-face communication
makes them feel the most involved
and connected to the organization.
Male respondents from Generation Y
showed higher preference to face-to-face
than male respondents from Generation
X (100% v. 50%). Female and male respondents
indicated face-to-face and email as
the top two channels that make them
feel the most involved and connected
to the organization (87.5% face-to-face
and 25% email). Overall, Generation
X reported that the intranet makes
them feel involved and connected to
the organization, but Generation Y
did not (20% v. 0%). Overall, female
respondents from Generation Y indicated
a wider variety of most involving
communication channels than female
respondents from Generation X (3 channels
v. 1 channel).
Participants primarily stated emotional
connectivity as the reason for preferring
face-to-face communication. M2 noted
face-to-face communication "builds
and connects you to people".
While F6 noted face-to-face communication,
specifically meetings, "Build
bridges between employees". F4
also advocated meetings because this
mode of face-to-communication addresses
the emotional as well as the knowledge
and information aspects of engagement,
"Everyone on the same page, everyone
involved". Table 7 shows the
results of question 16.
Interview question 17. When
you want to make others feel involved
and connected, which communication
channel do you use? Why?
Fourteen out of the 16 (87.5%) participants
stated that they use face-to-face
communication channels when they want
others to feel involved and connected.
Male respondents showed preference
to using email when they wanted to
make others feel involved and connect,
while female respondents did not (37.5%
v. 0%). Respondents from Generation
X showed higher preference to email
usage than Generation Y (40% v. 9%).
Similarly, male respondents from Generation
X showed a greater preference to email
than Generation Y (100% v. 16.6%).
Females from Generation X preferred
to use a wider variety of communication
channels when they wanted to make
others feel involved and connected
than female respondents from Generation
Y (3 channels v. 1 channel). The top
three answers in each category are
presented in Table 8.
The participants in the study explained
their preference for using face-to-face
communication when they wish to engage
others in the organization. M6 noted
face-to-face communication is "friendly"
and it "show[s] people I care".
While M7 noted face-to-face communication
provides "a chance to share a
friendly conversation with employees
not jump quickly into business".
Similarly, M3 observed this channel
allows employees to "feel closer".
F2 observed face-to-face communication
provides for "direct interaction"
which "give[s] the other person
my time which shows them they are
important". The participants
showed an overall preference for face-to-face
communication to take place via meetings.
M2 stated that meetings "Allows
you to understand the pulse of the
organization". F7 noted meetings
"Enhances team spirit to have
everyone in the same room discussing
the same issue" and F5 asserted,
"More commitment happens during
meetings".
Interview question 18. At work, which
channels would you like to see added?
Why? For what purpose, to send or
receive information?
Participants' answers varied but the
face-to-face channel was the top choice.
In general, the participants' responses
were variations on "more all
staff meetings" (for example,
M2, M5, M6, M7, M8, and F7). The answers
were as follows:
More face-to-face informal
social gatherings
More visible digital screens
More email to all staff
Office allocation that eases
communication
Feedback channels such as surveys
Social Media
Face-to-face all staff meetings
every month
Face-to-face knowledge hour
Summary
The top communication channel that
made respondents feel engaged was
face-to-face. The channel that respondents
employed to make others in the organization
feel engaged was also face-to-face.
However, the choice was split in the
male respondents from Generation X:
50% chose face-to-face and 50% chose
email. The most preferred communication
channel across all variables to send
and receive information was e-mail.
5: Interpretation
of Findings
This chapter starts with a review
of data collection and analysis used
to obtain findings from the data.
Next in the chapter is a descriptive
analysis of the data. The chapter
concludes with limitations of this
study.
Methodology and Data Collection
Review
The 16 Emirati participants who were
concurrently employed at a federal
authority in Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates were the primary source of
data collected. The data collected
from the interview conducted with
each participant were supported by
(a) foregrounding, (b) member checking
of data for accuracy, (c) review of
findings by the diverse members of
the research team including expertise
in mangement, intercultural communication,
Emirati culture, and Human Resource
Management, and (d) reference to relevant
literature on the areas of employee
engagement and internal communication.
The primary data consisted of the
participants' perceptions and experiences
related to the two questions that
anchored this study: (a) which internal
communication channels contribute
to engaged employees' sense of engagement
and (b) how these channels facilitate
this. The goal of the interview questions
was to identify which communication
channels engage employees, which communication
channels employees use when they want
others to feel involved and connected,
and how these channels do this. In
particular, the study aimed to determine
the reasons for the selection of communication
channels that made the participants
feel most involved and connected to
the organization (i.e., engaged).
In order to elicit the greatest degree
possible accuracy, breadth, and depth
of understanding regarding the topic
of the study (despite of the socio-cultural
constraints on data collection), the
participants described actual communication
channels that were being used in the
organization and explained the aspects
of these channels that contribute
to their sense of engagement. Participants
were asked to recall (1) communication
channels that made them feel involved
and connected and (2) communication
channels they used when they wanted
others to feel involved and connected.
The research team employed one-on-one,
face-to-face, semi-structured interviews
over four-weeks to collect the data.
During the interviews, the research
team listened for words and phrases
that described how each channel contributed
to the participants' sense of engagement.
For the purpose of this study, employee
engagement was defined as "the
emotional commitment the employee
has to the organization and its goals"
(Kruse, 2012, p. 1). It is this frame
that guided the analysis of data.
Analysis
This study aimed to determine which
internal communication channels contribute
to engaged employees' sense of engagement
and how these channels do this. Participants
found face-to-face and email to be
the primary channels that contribute
to their sense of engagement in the
organization. However, these contribute
to the participants' sense of engagement
in different ways: face-to-face communication
was found to support emotional connection
to the organization whereas written
channels (specifically email) were
found to support organizational knowledge
and information. Both emotional connection
and organizational knowledge have
been determined to be essential drivers
of employee engagement (e.g., CIPD,
2012; Gallup 2008, 2010, 2012).
Emotional connection. The participants
in the study indicated that face-to-face
communication promoted emotional connection
(engagement) with the organization
(N=87.5%). The perception that face-to-face
communication promotes connection
and relationship-building amongst
interactants is congruent with Media
Richness Theory (MRT) and in agreement
with Reinsch and Beswick (1990) who
posited rich channels support social
relationships. Similarly, the data
from this study are supportive of
Social Presence Theory (SPT). SPT
states that some channels better support
social relationships between interactants
better than others (Short, William,
& Christie, 1976) and that interactants
value a channel according to the psychological
closeness it affords the interactants,
as such, when a relationship is important,
richer channels should be used. Berk
and Clampitt (1991) supported the
use of oral channels for relational
messages and written channels for
content-oriented messages. Kupritz
and Cowell (2011) noted media higher
in social presence are vital to social
tasks such as building relationships.
Overall, 87.5% of the respondents
indicated that face-to-face communication
channels make them feel most involved
and connected to the organization.
For example, M2 stated face-to-face
communication: builds and connects
you to people" while F6 noted
meetings "[b]uild bridges between
employees". Similarly, 87.5%
indicated that they employed face-to-face
channels when they wanted to make
others feel involved and connected.
The rationale for this phenomenon
was succinctly explained by F2 who
noted that "[d]irect interaction"
gives "the other person my time
which shows them they are important".
Organizational knowledge and information.
The participants in the study
indicated written channels (specifically
email) supported the organizational
knowledge and information aspect of
engagement (Hara, Shachaf, & Hew,
2007). Overall, 87.5% of the respondents
stated that email was their preferred
communication channel when receiving
information at work and 93.75% of
the respondents stated that email
was their preferred communication
channel when sending information at
work. M3 said, "Receiving email
makes me feel I am a part of the loop
and organization. Even if I'm not
physically there, information reaches
me". This is congruent with both
Media Richness Theory and Social Presence
Theory.
Culture. O'Neill (2011) stated
that culture "shapes perceptions
of channels and channel features and
consuquently selection and use"
(p. 75). A study by Lind in 2001 concluded,
"Communication channel richness
does appear to have cultural/gender
differences which in turn lead to
differences in channel usage"
(p. 238). The data in this study supported
these assertions.
Generation. Walker (2009) asserted,
"Gen Y prefer to communicate
synchronously and interactively"
(p. 3) and as such have a preference
for face-to-face communication. Research
stated that Generation Y employees
prefer more direct communication (Johnson
Controls, 2010).
The data from this study support these
findings. The data from this study
showed differences between Generation
X and Generation Y with regard to
channel preferences. 80% of Generation
X felt face-to-face was the channel
that made them feel most involved
and connected with the organization
whereas 99.9% of Generation Y felt
this way about face-to-face communication.
Similarly, when participants send
communications with the intent of
making others in the organization
feel connected and involved 90.9%
of Generation Y but only 80% Generation
X felt face-to-face was the most appropriate
channel. When receiving organizational
information 81.8% of Generation Y
and 100% of Generation X indicated
a preference for email. These figures
support previous research that Generation
Y demonstrates a preference for interactive
communication channels such as face-to-face.
However, when sending organizational
information these assertions breaks
down: 99.9% of Generation X and 100%
of Generation Y indicated a preference
for sending organizaitonal information
via email. This contradicts the findings
that Generation Y has unique communication
channel preferences and that it prefers
face-to-face communication.
Gender. The data from this
study show males and females equally
(87.5%) prefer to receive organizational
information via email. They also concurred
with their second (face-to-face) and
third (telephone) channel rankings.
Similarly, both male and female participants
equally (87.5%) indicated face-to-face
as the channel they feels most engages
them followed by email (25% for both
groups). This is congruent with Gefen
and Straub's (1997) study of three
nations (Japan, USA, and Switzerland)
which found that female and male perceptions
of email varied but not their use.
When sending organizational information
there was also a large degree of agreement
between males and females. One hundred
percent of males and 87.5% of females
preferred to use email to accomplish
the task; however, 25% of each group
indicated a preference for face-to-face
and 12.5% of both groups preferred
telephone. Males and females diverged
in their responses to the channel
they employ to make others in the
organization feel involved and connected:
100% of females but only 75% of males
ranked face-to-face first.
United Arab Emirates. The UAE
has been noted to be a collectivist
culture (Abdalla & Al-Humoud,
2001). It has also been identified
as a high-context communication culture
(Hall, 1959). Thomas (2008) noted
these two cultural aspects are frequently
linked, "[C]ollective cultures
are 'High Context'" (p. 86).
The data from this study support the
assertion that "groups from collectivist
cultures demonstrate a greater preference
for rich and high social presence
channels" (O'Neill, 2011, p.
74). M3 said, "For us Arabs,
face-to-face communication makes us
feel closer to people and there will
be no chance for misunderstandings.
With phone calls, there are cultural
barriers, especially with women, it
makes sense and I totally respect
that".
Conclusion
The link between employee engagement
(EE) and internal communication (IC)
has been well established. Research
has shown internal communication is
a key driver of employee engagement
(MacLeod & Clarke, 2009; CIPD,
2012; Ruck, 2012). According to Towers
Watson (2010), internal communication
is one way to connect an organization
to its employees and also to connect
employees who are generationally and
culturally different. Bleeker and
Hill (2013) asserted that good internal
communication in an organization can
motivate and engage employees because
IC delivers allows employees to understand
what changes are happening and how
they should respond (i.e., emotional
connection) and provides regulation
and compliance because employees will
be aware of all the rules and regulations
(i.e., organizational knowledge and
information). The 2012 Towers Watson's
Global Workforce study corroborated
international studies finding communication
to be one of the top five drivers
of engagement in the UAE.
Limitations and Future Research
All studies have limitations and this
study was no different. The most prominent
limitations of this study were (a)
the use of participant recall, (b)
the small sample size, (c) limited
academic literature available on employee
engagement and internal communications
in the UAE, (d) the researchers' inability
to use multiple data collection methods,
(e) socio-cultural limitations regarding
the presentation of some data and
analysis, and (f) lack of Generation
X participants. In addition, the study
and findings represent experiences
from Emiratis in only one organization
in the UAE.
To better understand the link between
employee engagement and internal communication
in the UAE, future research may wish
to (a) include a larger number of
participants, (b) explore the topic
at different levels of the organization
to see if communication channels that
are perceived as engaging differ,
(c) include expatriate employees in
the organizations, (d) replicate the
study in Arabic, and (e) include participants
from different organizations.
Implications for Practice
The study aimed to determine which
internal communication channels contribute
to engaged employees' sense of engagement
and how these channels do this. Participants
found face-to-face and email to be
the primary channels that contribute
to their sense of engagement in the
organization. However, these contributed
to the participants' sense of engagement
in different ways: face-to-face communication
was found to support emotional connection
to the organization whereas written
channels (specifically email) were
found to support organizational knowledge
and information.
This study makes several contributions
to the area of employee engagement
and internal communication. First,
it adds to the existing literature
on employee engagement and internal
communication. Secondly, it adds to
the scant literature on employee engagement
and internal communication in Arab
contexts. And thirdly, it offers insight
for expatriate employees working with
Emiratis.
Appendix
Appendix A: Interview Questions
1. What is your job title? If you
feel comfortable with sharing this
information, what is your grade level?
2. How long have you been working
at this organization?
3. What is your highest level of education?
And at which institution?
4. What was the language you were
educated in during your highest level
of education?
5. When did you graduate (from your
highest level of education)?
6. What are the total years of your
professional experience?
7. How many places have your worked
in?
8. What are the different ways of
communication that you use to send
information in your day-to-day life?
9. What are the different ways of
communication that you use to receive
information in your day-to-day life?
10. What are the different ways of
communication that you use to send
information in your job?
11. What are the different ways of
communication that you use to receive
information in your job?
12. What are the most frequent ways
of communication you receive here
at the organization?
13. What are the most frequent ways
of communication you send here at
the organization?
14. Which ways of communication do
you prefer to receive information
from? Why?
15. Which ways of communication do
you prefer to send information from?
Why?
16. Of all the internal communications
you use, which ones make you feel
the most involved or most connected
to the organization? Why?
17. When you want to make other people
feel involved and connected, which
communication channel do you use and
why?
18. At work, which channels would
you like to see added? Why and for
what purpose, send/receive information?
19. Is there anything we didn't talk
about today that you think we should?
Are there any questions that you want
us to go back and revisit?
...................................................................................................................................................
1. Consulting
firms that specialize in employee
engagement generally agree that one
of the most common and effective ways
of measuring employee engagement drivers
is through opinion surveys of employees.
2. Results of the study were not published.
3. Although data was collected on
total years of work experience and
tenure with the target organization,
this information is not included in
the thesis as analysis yielded no
findings of significance in themselves
or in relation to the study.
4. Digital branding
refers to when the organization unifies
employees' computer monitor and phone
backgrounds.
References
Abdalla, I., & Al-Humoud, M. (2001).
Exploring the implicit leadership
theories of the Arabian Gulf states.
Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 50(4), 506-531. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00071
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank. (2007).
ADCB takes the lead with employee
engagement. Retrieved June 11, 2013,
from ADCB: http://www.adcb.com/common/pr/2007/nov/employee_engagement.asp
Abu Dhabi Government. (n.d). Abu Dhabi
emirate: Facts and figures. Retrieved
July 1, 2013, from Abu Dhabi eGovernment
Gateway: https://www.abudhabi.ae/egovPoolPortal_WAR/appmanager/ADeGP/Citizen?_nfpb=true&_
pageLabel=P3000130241204212839465&lang=en&did=150258
Accor Services. (2008). Reward to
engage - rewards, benefits and employee
engagement in today's organisations.
Retrieved from HR Executive Circle:
www.hrexecutivecircle.com/pdf/Employee-Engagement-White-Paper.pdf
Adler, R., & Elmhorst, J. (2008).
Communicating at work: Principles
and practices for business and the
professions (9th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Al Jenaibi, B. (2010). Differences
between gender treatments in the workforce.
Cross-Cultural Communication, 6(2),
63-74. Retrieved from http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/ccc
Al Lamky, A. (2006). Feminizing leadership
in Arab societies: The perspective
of Omani female leaders. Women in
Management Review, 22(1), 49-67. doi:10.1108/09649420710726229
AMEinfo. (2008). UAE managers are
poorer communicators than they think.
Retrieved June 17, 2013, from AMEinfo:
http://www.ameinfo.com/156434-more1.html
Ames, K. (2012). Key characteristics
of employee engagement. Retrieved
June 13, 2013, from O.C Tanner: http://www.octanner.com/blog/2012/06/loyalty-productivity-and-advocacy-3-key-characteristics
-of-employee-engagement/
Aon Hewitt. (2012). Trends in global
employee engagement. Retrieved July
1, 2013, from Aon:
http://www.aon.com/attachments/thogght-leadership/Trends_Global_Employee_Engagement_Final.pdf
Balain, S., & Sparrow, P. (2009).
Engaged to perform: A new perspective
on employee engagement. Centre for
Performance-led HR White Paper 09/04.
Lancaster University Management School.
Retrieved from: http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/files/hr/16878.pdf
Barrett, D. (2006). Leadership Communication.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Barry, B., & Fulmer, I. (2004).
The medium and the message: The adaptive
use of communication media in dyadic
influence. Academy of Management Review,
29, 272-292. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.12736093
Berk, L., & Clampitt, P. (1991).
Finding the right path in the communication
maze- management communication channels.
Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4422/is_n10_v8/ai_11416000/
Berry, G. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness
on virtual teams: Understanding why
traditional teams skills are insufficient.
Journal of Business Communication,
48(126), 186-206. doi: 10.1177/0021943610397270
Blanche, M., Durrheim, K., & Painter,
D. (2007). Research in Practice: Applied
Methods for the Social Sciences (3rd
ed). Cape Town: Paarl Print.
Bleeker, A., & Hill, R. (2013).
Internal Communications [PowerPoint
Slides].
Blessing White. (2011). Employee engagement
report 2011: Beyond the numbers: A
practical approach for individuals,
managers, and executives. Retrieved
from: http://www.uq.edu.au/vietnampdss//docs/July2011/BlessingWhite_2011_EE_Report.pdf
Borisoff, D., & Merril, L. (1992).
The power to communicate: Gender differences
as barriers (2nd ed). Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland.
Branham, L. (2005). Planning to become
an employer of choice. Journal of
Organizational Excellence, 24(3),
57-69. doi: 10.1002/joe.20060
Bristol-Rhys, J. (2010). Emirati Women.
New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Byres, P., & Wilcox, J. (1991).
Focus groups: A qualitative opportunity
for researchers. Journal of Business
Comminocation, 28(1), 63-78. doi:10.1177/002194369102800105
Cachia, M., & Millward, L. (2011).
The telephone medium and semi-structured
interviews: a complementary fit. Qualitative
Research in Organizations and Management:
An International Journal, 6(3), 265-77.
doi: 10.1108/17465641111188420
Campbell, M., & Smith, R. (2010).
High-Potential talent: A view from
inside the leadership pipeline. Retrieved
July 12, 2013, from Centre for Creative
Leadership: www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/highPotentialTalent.pdf
Carlson, J., & Zmud, R. (1999).
Channel expansion theory and the experiential
nature of media richness perceptions.
Academy of Management Journal, 42(2),
153-170. doi:10.2307/257090
Central Intelligence Agency. (2013,
August). The world factbook: United
Arab Emirates. Retrieved August 31,
2013, from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ae.html
Charmaz, K. (1994). Discovering chronic
illness: Using grounded theory. In
B. Glaser (Ed.), More grounded theory
methodology: A reader (pp. 65-93).
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development. (2007). Employee Engagement.
Retrieved June 23, 2013, from CIPD:
http://www3.uwic.ac.uk/English/management/workbasedlearning/CCWL/Documents/Workforce/
CIPD_Higher_Level_Learning_Employee_Engagement.pdf
Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development. (2012). Employee communication.
Retrieved June 21, 2013, from CIPD:
http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/employee-communication.aspx
CiprinsideUK. (2012, November 14).
CIPR inside potted history of internal
communication. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O04aYg5p2BI
Clampitt, P., & Downs, C. (1993).
Employee perceptions of the relationship
between communication and productivity.
Journal of Business Communication,
30(1), 5-28. Retrieved from http://imetacomm.com/wp-content/themes/Structure%20Premium%20White/organic_structure_white/downloads/
Metacomm_CommunicationProductivity.pdf
Clutterbuck, D., & Hirst, S. (2003).
Talking business: Making communication
work. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great.
New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Confederation of British Industry.
(2012). Harvey Nash employment trends
survey 2012. Retrieved June 10, 2013,
from www.cbi.org.uk: www.cbi.org.uk/media/1676818?cbi_harvey_nash_ets_july_2012_pdf
Conference-Board. (2006). Employee
engagement- a review of current research
and its implications. Retrieved June
13, 2013, from http://montrealoffice.wikispaces.com/file/view/Employee+Engagement+Conference+Board_.pdf
Conrad, C., & Poole, M. (2012).
Strategic organisational communication
in a global economy (7th ed). Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986).
Organizational information requirements,
media richness and structural design.
Management Science, 32, 554-57. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Dale Carnegie & Associates. (2012).
What drives employee engagement and
why it matters. Retrieved from http://www.dalecarnegie.com/assets/1/7/driveengagement_101612_wp.pdf
Debashish, S., & Das, B. (2009).
Business communication. New Delhi:
Phi Learning.
Denning, S. (2007). The secret language
of leadership. San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Devi, V. (2009). Employee engagement
is a two-way street. Human Resource
Management International Digest, 17(2),
3-4. doi: 10.1108/09670730910940186
Dewhirst, H. (1971). Influence of
perceived information-sharing norms
on communication channel selection.
Academy of Management Journal, 14(3),
305-315. doi:10.2307/255075
Doherty, R. (2010). Making employee
engagement an end-to-end practice.
Strategic HR Review, 9(3), pp. 32-37.
doi: 10.1108/14754391011040055
Donaldson, A., & Eyre, K. (2000).
Using visual communication to drive
change. Strategic Communication Management,
pp. 32-35.
D'Urso, S., & Rains, S. (2008).
Examining the scope of channel expansion:
A test of channel expansion theory
with new and traditional communication
media . Management Communication Quarterly,
21(4), pp. 486-507. doi: 10.1177/0893318907313712
Flanagin, A., & Waldeck, J. (2004).
Technology use and organizational
newcomer socialization. Journal of
Business Communication, 41(2), 137-165.
doi: 10.1177/0021943604263290
Flatley, M. (1999). Communication
channels. In Encyclopedia of business
(2nd ed). Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5209/is_1999/ai_n19125644/?tag=mantle_skin:
content
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2005).
The interview: From neutral stance
to political movement. In N. Denzin,
& Y. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (3rd
ed.) (pp. 695-727). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ford, D. (2013, June 13). Gallup:
70 percent of U.S. workers are disengaged.
Retrieved June 22, 2013, from Associations
Now: http://associationsnow.com/2013/06/gallup-workplace-study-finds-majority-of-u-s-workers-
are-disengaged/
Gable, G. (1994). Integrating case
study and survey research methods:
An example in information systems.
European Journal of Information Systems,
3(2), 112-126. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5853/1/5853.pdf
Gallup, (2006). Gallup study: engaged
employees inspire company innovation.
The Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved
from http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/24880/gallup-study-engaged-employees-inspire-
company.aspx
Gallup, (2008). Employee engagement:
What's your engagement ration?, Retrieved
from http://www.mvonederland.nl/sites/default/files/gallup_2008_pdf.pdf
Gallup, (2010). The state of the global
workplace: A worldwide study of employee
engagement and wellbeing. Retrieved
from http://www.gallup.com/file/strategicconsulting/157196/The%20State%20of%20the%20Global%
20Workplace%202010.pdf
Gallup, (2012). Employee engagement:
A leading indicator of financial performance.
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/161459/enagement-work-effect-performance-continues-
tough-economic-times.aspx
Gallup, (2013). The state of the global
workplace: Employee engagement insight
for business leaders worldwide. Retrieved
from http://www.gallup.com/services/178517/state-global-workplace.aspx
Gates, W. (2000). Business at the
Speed of Thought Succeeding in the
Digital Economy. Penguin Books Limited.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (1997).
Gender differences in the perception
and use of e-mail: An extension to
the technology acceptance model. MIS
Quarterly, 21(4), pp. 389-404. doi:10.2307/249720
Gillham, B. (2000). The research interview.
London, England: Continuum.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different
voice: Psychological theory and women's
development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation
of self in everyday life. New York,
NY: Doubleday.
Gordon, R. (1996). Impact of ingratiation
on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic
investigation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71(1), 54-70.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.54
Gross, R. (2007). Corporate social
responsibility and employee engagement:
Making the connection. Retrieved June
11, 2013, from Mandrake: http://www.mandrake.ca/bill/images/corporate_responsibility_white_paper.pdf
Hall, E. (1959). The silent language
. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. Gardent
City, New York: Anchor Books.
Hall, R., & Lord, R. (1995). Multi-level
information-processing explanations
of followers' leadership perceptions.
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 265-287.
doi:10.1016/1048-9843
Hara, N., Shachaf, P., & Hew,
K. (2010). Cross cultural analysis
of the Wikipedia community.
Journal of the American Society of
Information Science and Technology,
61(10), 2097?2108.
Haring, R. (2008). Conducting culturally
appropriate qualitative market research
in the Native American landscape.
Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal,11(1), 7-16. doi: 10.1108/13522750810845522
HayGroup. (2012). Why does employee
engagement matter to CEOs. Retrieved
July 1, 2013, from Hay Group: http://www.haygroup.com/downloads/ww/Thought_paper_Why_does_employee_engagement_
matter_to_CEOs.pdf
Heron, A. (1942). Sharing Information
with Employees. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Hertzberg, F. (1959). The Motivation
to Work. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Hiemstra, G. (1982). Teleconferencing,
concern for face, and organizational
culture. In M. Burgoon, & N. Doran,
Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 874-904).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede Centre. (2013). Arab world.
Retrieved from http://geert-hofstede.com/arab-world-
egiqkwlblysa.html
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences.
London, England: Sage.
Horomia, K. (2007). An investigation
of internal communication within the
New Zealand financial sector. Dissertation.
Retrieved from http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10652/1261/fulltext.pdf?sequence=1
Housel, T., & Davis, W. (1977).
The reduction of upward communication
distortion. Journal of Business Communication,
14(4), 49-65. doi:10.1177/002194367701400405
Hughes, J., & Rog, E. (2008).
Talent management: A strategy for
improving employee recruitment, retention
and engagement within hospitality
organizations. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
20(7), 743-757. doi: 10.1108/09596110810899086
Jameson, D. (2007). Reconceptualizing
cultural identity and its role in
intercultural business communication.
Journal of Business Communication,
44(3), 199-235. doi:10.1177/0021943607301346
Jasper, M. (1994). Issues in phenomenology
for researchers of nursing. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), 309-314.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01085.x
Jelf Group. (2013, January 13). Poor
internal communication equals poor
employee engagement. Retrieved June
23, 2013, from Jelf Group: http://www.jelfgroup.com/page/news/press-releases/poor-internal-communication-equals-poor-
employee-engagement
Johnson Controls. (2010). Annual report
2010 - gloal workplace innovation
. Retrieved from Johnson Controls:
http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/content/dam/WWW/jci/be/global_workplace_innovation/oxygenz/
Oxygenz_Report_-_2010.pdf
Jones, E., & Pittman, T. (1982).
Toward a general theory of strategic
self-presentation . In J. Suls (Ed.),
Psychological perspective on the self
(pp. 231-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbau,.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions
of personal engagement and disengagment
at work. Academy of Management Journal,
33(4), 692-724. doi:10.2307/256287
Kalla, H. (2005). Integrated internal
communications: a multidisciplinary
perspective. Corporate Communications:
An International Journal, 10 (4),
302-314. doi: 10.1108/13563280510630106
Kenexa Research Institute. (2010).
Kenexa research institute clears prejudices
in career outlook of Gulf expatriates
and nationals. Retrieved from Kenexa
Research Institute: http://www.kenexa.com/getattachment/269a4802-3b79-46fb-a198-692cc853bc49/Kenexa-Research-Institute-Clears-Prejudices-in-Car.aspx
Kenexa Research Institute. (2012).
A candid look at employee engagement:
Five global truths. Retrieved from
Kenexa: http://www.kenexa.com/Portals/0/Downloads/A%20Candid%20Look%20at%20Employee%
20Engagement%20Five%20Global%20Truths.pdf
Khaleej Times. (2009, April 17). Oman
tops GCC employee engagement index:
Survey.
Retrieved from http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/business/
2009/april/business_april716.xml§ion=business
Krueger, R., & Casey, M. A. (2009).
Focus groups: A practical guide for
applied research (4th ed.). London,
Englang: Sage.
Kruse, K. (2012, June 6). What is
employee engagement. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/
kevinkruse/2012/06/22/employee-engagement-what-and-why/
Kuppershmidt, B. (2000). Multi-generational
employees: strategies for effective
management. The Health Care Manager,
19(1), 65-76.
Kurpitz, V., & Cowell, E. (2011).
Productive management communication:
Online and face- to-face. Journal
of Business Communication, 48(1),
54-82. doi: 10.1177/0021943610385656
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women's
place. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Lauring, J. (2011). Intercultural
organizational communication: The
social organizing of interaction in
international encounters . Journal
of Business Communication, 48(3),
231-25. doi: 10.1177/0021943611406500
Leadership Insights. (2011). Employee
engagement: Maximising organizational
performance. Retrieved June 11, 2013,
from www.right.com: https://www.right.com/thought-leadership/research/employee-engagement---
maximizing-organizational-performance.pdf
Limaye, M., & Victor, D. (1991).
Cross-cultural business communication
research: State of the art and hypotheses
for the 1990s. Journal of Business
Communication, 28(3), 277-299. doi:10.1177/002194369102800306
Lind, M. (2001). An exploration of
communication channel usage by gender
. Work Study, 50(6/7), 234-240. doi:10.1108/00438020110403338
Linke, A., & Zerfass, A. (2011).
Internal communication and innovation
culture: development a change framework.
Journal of Communication Management,
15(4), 332-348. doi: 10.1108/13632541111183361
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985).
Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Lustig, M., & Koester, J. (1999).
Intercultural competence: Interpersonal
communication across cultures (3rd
ed). New York, NY: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Luther, C. (2009). Internal communication
evolution. Retrieved June 20, 2013,
from
http://internalcommunicationtrends.wordpress.com/past-present/
Macey, W. & Schneider, B. (2008).
The meaning of employee engagement.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
1(1), 3-30.doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2009).
Engaging for success: Enhancing performance
through employee engagement: a report
to government. Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills: London. Retrieved
from http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file52215.pdf
Madlock, P. (2008). The link between
leadership style, communicator competence,
and employee satisfaction. Journal
of Business Communication, 45(1),
61-78. doi:10.1177/0021943607309351
Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1982).
A cultural approach to male-female
communication. In J. Gumperz (Ed.),
Language and social identity (pp.
196-216). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Markus, M. (1994). Electronic mail
as the medium of managerial choice.
Organization Science, 5(4), 502-527.
doi:10.1287/orsc.5.4.502
Marshall, M. (1996). Sampling for
Qualitative Research. Family Practice.13
(6), 522-525. Retrieved from http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/com9640/files/2010/08/qualsampling.pdf
Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W. L.
(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 397-442. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and
personality. New York, NY: Harper.
McKinsey. (2010). Retaining key employees
in times of change. Retrieved October
13, 2013, from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/retaining_key_employees_in_times_of_change
Morand, D. (2003). Politeness and
the clash of interactional orders
in cross-cultural communication .
Thunderbird International Business
Review , 45(5), 521-540. doi: doi:10.1002/tie.10089
Mumford, E. (1971). Job satisfaction:
A method of analysis. Personnel Review,
20(3), 11-19. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000000789
Newsweaver. (2013). Delivering effective
internal communications. Retrieved
June 13, 2013, from
http://www.newsweaver.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/NewsweaverWhitepaperIC.pdf
O'Neill, K. (2011). Communication
channels utilized by Emirati females
to enact leadership (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from OhioLINK ETD Center:
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:0:0:APPLICATION_PROCESS=DOWNLOAD_ETD_SUB_DOC_ACCNUM:::
F1501_ID:antioch1322493547,attachment.
doi: antioch1322493547.
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2006).
Linking research questions to mixed
methods data analysis procedures.
The Qualitative Report, 11(3), pp.
474-498. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR11-3/onwuegbuzie.pdf
Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages
and disadvantages of four interview
techniques in qualitative research.
Qualitative Social Research, 7(4).
Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0604118.
Pascoe, C. (2013). Communicating engagement:
Have the rules of "engagement"
changed in today's globalised workplace?
unpublished disstertation. Doha, Qatar.
Peoplemetrics. (2011). 3 common causes
of employee disengagement. Retrieved
June 22, 2013, from
http://www.peoplemetrics.com/blog/3-common-causes-of-employee-disengagement/
Phan, P., Siegel, D., & Wright,
M. (2009). New developments in technology
management education: Background issues,
program initiatives, and research
agenda. Academy of Management Learning
& Education, 8(3), 324-336. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2009.44287934
Powis, A. (2012). A journey to award-winning
employee engagement. Human Resource
Management International Digest, 20(5),
31-34. doi: 10.1108/096707312
Reinsch, N., & Beswick, R. (1990).
Voice mail versus conversational channels:
A cost minimization analysis of individuals'
preference. Academy of Management
Journal, 33(4), 801-816. doi:10.2307/256291
Rice, R. (1993). Media appropriateness:
Using social presence theory to compare
traditional and new organizational
media. Human Communicaiton Research,
19(4), 451-484. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00309.x
Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants
an engaged workforce, how can you
create it?. Workspan, 1(6) pp. 36-39.
Retrieved from http://www.wfd.com/PDFS/Engaged%20Workforce%20Amy%20Richman%20Workspan.pdf
Robertson, I., & Cooper, C. (2010).
Full engagement: the integration of
employee engagement and psychological
well-being. Leadership & Organisation
Development Journal, 31(4), 324-336.
doi: 10.1108/01437731011043348
Rowe, M. (1990). Barriers to equality:
The power of subtle discrimination
to maintain unequal opportunity. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal
, 3(2), 153-163 . doi:10.1007/BF01388340
Ruck, K. (2012, December 10). A new
definition of internal communication.
Retrieved June 9, 2013, from http://www.exploringinternalcommunication.com/a-new-definition-for-internal-communication/
Ruck, K. (2013, April 29). The rise
and rise of internal communication.
Retrieved June 12, 2013, from http://www.exploringinternalcommunication.com/the-rise-and-rise-of-internal-communication/
Schnurr, S. (2009). Leadership discourse
at work: Interactions of humor, gender
and workplace culture. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillian.
Shanmugan, P., & Krishnaveni,
R. (2012, September). Employee engagement:
An introspection into its conceptualisation.
International Journal of Social Science
& Interdisciplinary Research,
1 (9), 186-194. Retrieved from http://indianresearchjournals.com
/pdf/IJSSIR/2012/September/19.pdf
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie,
B. (1976). The social psychology of
telecommunications. London, England:
Wiley.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010).
Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal
review of the foundations. Human Resource
Development Review, 9(1), pp. 89-110.
doi: 10.1177/1534484309353560
Start JudgeGill. (2012). DA staff
engagement. Retrieved June 10, 2013,
from
http://mideast.startjg.com/our-work/dubai-airports-employee-engagement.html
Stevens, R., & McElhill, J. (2000).
A qualitative study and model of the
use of e-mail in organisations. Internet
Research, 10(4), 271-283. doi: 10.1108/10662240010342531
Stokes, D., & Bergin, R. (2006).
Methodology or "methodolatry"?
An evaluation of focus groups and
depth interviews. Qualitative Market
Research, 9(1), pp. 26-37. doi:10.1108/13522750610640530
Sullivan, C. (1995). Preferences for
electronic mail in organizational
communication tasks . Journal of Business
Communication, 32(1), 49-64. doi:10.1177/002194369503200103
Tannen, D. (1986). That's not what
I meant! How conversational style
makes or breaks relationships . New
York, NY: Ballantine Books .
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't
understand: Men and women in conversation.
New York, NY: Harper.
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9
to 5: Women and men at work. New York,
NY: Harper.
Tannen, D. (1996). Gender and discourse.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Taylor, F. (1911). The principles
of scientific management. New York:
Harper Brothers.
The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2011).
Re-engaging with Engagement: Views
from the boardroom on employee engagement.
Retrieved from http://www.haygroup.com/EngagementMatters/downloads/Re-engaging-with-engagement.pdf
Thomas, A. (2008). Focus groups in
qualitatived research: Culturally
sensitive methodology for the Arabian
Gulf? International Journal of Research
& Method in Education, 31(1),
77-88. doi:10.1080/17437270801919941
Tongco, D. (2007). Purposive sampling
as a tool for informant selection.
Ethnobotany Research & Applications,
5, 147-158. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10125/227
Towers Watson. (2010, April). Engagement
methodology.
Retrieved from http://www.towerswatson.com/en-US/Insights/IC-Types/Survey-Research-Results/
2010/04/Engagement-Methodology
Towers Watson. (2012). Global Workforce
Study. Retrieved from http://towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/
2012-Towers-Watson-Global-Workforce-Study.pdf
Trauth, E., Kwan, S., & Barber,
S. (1984). Channel selection and effective
communication for managerial decision
making. ACM Transactions on Office
Information Systems, 2(2). 123-140.
doi:10.1145/521.522
Tremblay, M. (1957). The key informant
technique: A non-ethnographic application.
American Anthropologist, 59(4), 688-701.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/666104
Twenge, J., & Campbell, S. (2008).
Generational differences in psychological
traits and their impact on the workplace.
Journal of Managerial Psychology ,
23(8), 862-77. doi: 10.1108/02683940810904367`
UAEInteract. (2008). UAE government
launches internal communications manual.
Retrieved June 23, 2013, from http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/UAE_government_launches_internal_communications_manual
/33151.htm
UAEInteract. (2013). Abu Dhabi's population
at 2.33m, with 475,000 Emiratis. Retrieved
from http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/Abu_Dhabi%E2%80%99s_population_at_2.33m,_with_475,000_
Emiratis/57590.htm
UAE Ministry of Finance and Industry.
(n.d). Oil and gas. Retrieved from
http://www.uae.gov.ae/
Government/oil_gas.htm
Vanover, R. (2008). Instant messaging
risky without internal mechanism,.
Retrieved June 15, 2013,
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/data-center/instant-messaging-risky-without-internal-mechanism/
Walker, S. (2009). Leading Generation
Y. LT Focus. Retrieved from http://www.talentsmoothie.com/
articles/2009/12/leadership-trust-focus-spring-2009/
Waltman, J. (2011). Communication.
In M. Simmering (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Business (2nd ed.). Retrieved from
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Bun-
Comp/Communication.html
Welch, M., & Jackson, P. (2007).
Rethinking internal communication:
a stakeholder approach. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal,
12(2), 177-198. doi: 10.1108/13563280710744847
Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of
the employee engagement concept: communication
implications. Corporate Communications:
An International Journal, 16(4), 328-46.
doi: 10.1108/13563281111186968
Wimpenny, P., & Gass, J. (2000).
Interviewing in phenomenology and
grounded theory: Is there a difference?
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6),
1485-1492. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01431.x
Winslow, W., Honein, G., & Elzubeir,
M. (2002). Seeking Emirati women's
voices: The use of focus groups with
an Arab population . Qualitative Health
Research, 12(4), 566-575. doi:10.1177/104973202129119991
Xu, J., & Thomas, H. (2011). How
can leaders achieve high employee
engagement. Leadership and Organisation
Development Journal, 32(4), 399-416.
doi: 10.1108/01437731111134661
|