Corporate Reputation Review
In Practice
Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 8, No. 4, 2006, pp. 322–338
# Palgrave Macmillan Ltd,
1479–1889/06 $30.00
Page 322
Volume 8 Number 4
A Managerial Look at the Interaction
Between Internal Communication and
Corporate Reputation
Arin Dortok
Kesisim Publication and Communication Services, Istanbul, Turkey
ABSTRACT
This paper is based on the hypothesis that there is
a correlation between corporate reputation and
internal communication. Qualitative research has
been conducted based on the hypothesis that com-
panies with high reputation and companies with
lower reputation differ in their attitudes towards
the ‘relation between corporate reputation and
internal communication’. This study is based on
research called the ‘Most Admired Companies’
conducted annually over the past three years by
one of Turkey’s leading business magazines,
Capital. In this research, for comparative pur-
poses, only the top 10 and the bottom 10 compa-
nies listed in the above-mentioned ‘Most Admired
Companies’ research have been taken into consid-
eration. The research method that was used in this
study for the purposes of determining the attitude
of senior communication managers toward inter-
nal communication was the ‘survey method’.
Although the sample size of the survey was
limited to the numbers noted above, statistically
significant results have been obtained. These
include the following: the top 10 companies give
weight to internal communication; they consider
measurement a significant factor in their activities
and believe that ‘commitment’ is a major contribu-
tion towards business results; they develop and
put into effect internal communication plans more
often than the bottom 10 companies; and they
believe in the impact of internal communication
on corporate reputation. This study states that an
interaction between corporate reputation and
internal communication is in effect. The purpose
of this paper is to provide a new perspective on the
discussions about the subject.
KEYWORDS: business objectives, business
results, corporate reputation, employee, internal
communication
INTRODUCTION
Today people find themselves in a market
environment, where the conditions are con-
tinuously changing. The competition is
heating up, information is being dissemi-
nated faster than ever — thanks to develop-
ing technology — and emotional factors are
given priority over material values, as pro-
ducts and services look more and more
alike. Given the changing conditions of the
market, it is now a must that not only pro-
duction, finance and business processes, but
also communication processes are managed
strategically. There is now an awareness of
the possibility that, with increasing compe-
tition, stakeholders — such as shareholders,
investors, customers, consumers, suppliers,
employees and the general public who can
influence the company or be influenced by
its operations — can change their decisions
anytime. On the other hand, the assumption
that a company’s interaction with its stake-
holders is what makes up its corporate repu-

tation and that this interaction has an impact
on the company’s business results, has been
discussed and confirmed as compelling.
Companies are now confronted by a
need to measure the expectations of their
stakeholders and to express clearly their
own vision, on the one hand, a need to
‘manage the future’ by establishing a con-
nection between the two, on the other.
‘It is possible to compare reputation with a
monetary value, but it is not easy’, says
Charles J. Fombrun (1996), the Executive
Director of the Reputation Institute. His
approach towards ‘corporate reputation’ is
rather solid: reputation affects how a com-
pany gains the support of people and in
return is influential on the degree of their
willingness to contribute to the company.
For listed companies, the only simple mea-
sure is to analyze the ‘book value’ and the
market value and the difference between
them. The result is the ‘intangible assets’
gained by the company from the market and
that makes up an average of 55 per cent of
the company value. Intangible values consist
of two different assets: intellectual capital
and reputation capital. The latter is gaining
importance as a source of financial value.1
Corporate Reputation in the Eyes of
Employees
Corporate reputation, which has become a
major concern for companies, is now a
value that is hard to achieve and yet easy
to lose. In order to accurately manage cor-
porate reputation, it is necessary to identify
and analyze the stakeholders’ expectations
and the role they play in a corporate repu-
tation. Among the stakeholders who influ-
ence corporate reputation and are
influenced by it, employees are a significant
factor and their significant role becomes
increasingly effective every day. Paula M.
Angelo’s statement supports this assertion:
‘The reputation of the company is
always important in the eyes of its
Dortok
employees. The employees serve as the
perfect source and they are a competitive
advantage when sharing the corporate
brand with potential customers, existing
ones and with other stakeholders.’
(Angelo, 2000)
Employees play a key role in helping
companies achieve their business results.
The relation of the employees with their
company is gaining more importance in the
achievement of business results such as
increasing company profit and in achieving
a competitive standing in the market.
‘Companies with good reputations
attract good employees, who produce
new and innovative products and serve
customers well. Earnings grow,
employees and customers stay happy,
and the strong reputation continues. On
the other hand, companies at the bottom
of the reputation list with low reputation
ratings have their own reasoning. Bad
performance causes financial problems.
Both the Company and its employees
and the customers lose, which makes the
bad performance even worse.’
(Vergin, 2003)
The Corporate Communications Survey
conducted by Strateji/GfK research in
December 2003 among stakeholders from
the ‘general public’ sets forth that in the
trust/frequency index, the employee ranks in
the top three as an information source.
(Figure 1)2
Employees have an influence on other
stakeholders. One other survey in support of
this assertion was conducted by Wirthlin
Worldwide Research for Burson–Marstel-
ler. The survey results provided a ranking of
five groups of stakeholders with influence on
corporate reputation (Burson–Marsteller
and Wirthlin Worldwide, 1998: 1).
The collective perception of all stake-
holders noted in Table 1 is what deter-
Page 323
The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation

Figure 1: Information sources about the benchmark company

Table 1: Collective Perception of Stakeholders Determining Corporate Reputation

Ask Ask CEOs Ask media Ask board Ask Ask Wall Ask government
executives members consumers Street

Customers Customers Customers Customers Customers Customers Customers

Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees
The Media The Media The Media The Media General CEO Community
public
Wall Street CEO Community Wall Street The Media Wall Street General public
CEO Wall Street General CEO Community The Media The Media
public

mines whether the corporate reputation is
good or bad. Therefore it is crucial for
employees to identify themselves with
their companies.
‘The reputation of a company is a
mirror reflecting what is going on
inside the company. If employees
identify themselves with their company,
they can work better, pay more
attention on their products and this in
turn strengthens the corporate culture.
Given the opportunity, they can act as
ambassadors of the company. Therefore,
receiving the support of employees is
crucial for sustaining a strong reputa-
tion.’
(Fombrun, 1996: 14)

Page 324

The Influence of Intangible Values on
Employees
Having a good corporate reputation and
maintaining it is impossible without the sup-
port of employees. ‘Without a good internal
reputation, your external reputation will not be
good either. If your employees do not trust
you, they can openly voice their feelings
and thoughts to everybody, hence brutally
damaging your reputation and invalidating
your successes’ (Young, 1996: 11–12).
Today, one often comes across literature
expressions such as ‘employees’ commit-
ment to the company’ and ‘employees’
pride in being part of the company’ Expres-
sions like ‘employee satisfaction’ and ‘custo-
mer satisfaction’ are used and ‘reputation’
and ‘employee’ are often used together.
‘The behavior that supports a corporate
reputation or brand needs to be more
deeply rooted, it needs to rest in the
organization’s identity. Employees must
feel the message they are sending with
their behavior, not just go through
motions. Thus, increasingly organiza-
tions compete based on their ability to
express who they are and what they
stand for.’
(Schultz et al., 2000: 80)
Figure 2: The Mori Excellence Model
Dortok
The perception of other stakeholders is
influenced by the perception of employees
about their own company. Therefore it is
of great significance that the employees
embrace and internalize the company cul-
ture, which is only possible through fully
embracing and internalizing the intangible
and emotional values, and not only the
functional and tangible ones.
The necessity for employees to act as
their companies’ advocates in order to
create a change in the perceptions and
behavior of other stakeholders becomes
evident. The extent of employees’ relations
to their companies can be seen in the Mori
Excellence Model (Figure 2).
The attitudes laid out in Figure 2 are
valid for all stakeholders and they consti-
tute the main subjects of both internal
communication and corporate reputation.
Various research on reputation points out
the possibility of a negative impact created
by corporate members on their company’s
reputation and in this connection research-
ers draw attention to the significance of
emotional factors.
‘Since beliefs about organizational
identity affect members’ motivation and
commitment, protecting and enhancing
Page 325
The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation
the organization’s reputation affect its
ability to manage its employees.’
(Schultz et al., 2000: 80)
Employees are in need of a feeling of trust
for their companies; they want to acquire
company related information directly, to
contribute to the future decisions of their
company and to be proud of the company
they work for. In their paper: ‘Gaps
between the internal and external percep-
tions of the corporate brand,’ Gary Davis
and Rosa Chun of the Manchester Business
School explain employee satisfaction as
follows: ‘Employee satisfaction here refers
to the degree which an employee has posi-
tive emotions towards the ‘‘organization’’,
not towards the ‘‘specific work role’’, which
is relevant to ‘‘job satisfaction’’ ’ (Davies and
Chun, 2002). In that paper, the authors
assert that while satisfaction has two aspects
— rational and emotional — during the
study branding activity was focused on the
emotional aspect. The emotional aspect is
described by such concepts as ‘happy’,
‘pleased’ and ‘proud’.
Among the most significant factors that
help employees perceive their companies
and act as the company’s advocates are the
intangible values. Today, tangible factors
such as salary and bonus that can be
described as functional are considered
‘default’.
‘There is increasing evidence that the
good employees demand more from
their place of employment than a
competitive wage, professional develop-
ment, and a career path. Bright,
dynamic, independent, and creative
employees want to feel that the
corporate values, that the organization
provides them with an arena for
meaningful work and personal develop-
ment and that they can be proud of their
place of work.’
(Pruzan, 2002)
Page 326
Figure 3 provides examples of significant
intangible values that are influential in
encouraging employees to be proud of
their company and to become their compa-
ny’s advocates.3
Intangible factors that can help employ-
ees become advocates of their companies
and affect other stakeholders can be mana-
ged by internal communication, which in
turn is related to corporate reputation.
When the studies are examined about
employees and corporate reputation in an
attempt to analyze the interaction between
internal communication and corporate
reputation, it is seen that employees are
important stakeholders in corporate reputa-
tion and influence the business results.
Employees, on the other hand, are them-
selves positively influenced by good corpo-
rate reputation.
Below is a summary of Capital’s ‘Most
Admired Companies’ research which has
been an inspiration for this study on the
interaction of internal communication with
corporate reputation. While this study pre-
sents an outlook on general opinion, a sub-
sequent study, ‘A Managerial Look at the
Interaction between Internal Communica-
tion and Corporate Reputation Research’,
reveals the correlation and the interaction
between corporate reputation and internal
communication.
CAPITAL’S ‘MOST ADMIRED
COMPANIES’ RESEARCH4
The methodology that the Capital maga-
zine applied in its ‘Most Admired Com-
panies’ research, which has been used as a
source for this research on the relation
between corporate reputation and internal
communication, is as follows:
— Turkey’s most admired companies of
2002 as well as the most admired
companies from 38 different industries
were identified
— In total 550 of the companies listed
 Dortok

Figure 3: Business results (%) — Benchmark

I would support every kind of

0.9
4.9
commercial activity 94.2

I would support every kind of social

2.0 12.7 85.3
activity

Is a company I would like to work

2.8

for/ I would want my child to work 7.5 89.7

for

I would buy shares for the long

0.9
term if/ when I have money 16.3 19.9 62.9
3.1

0.2
Is a company I am proud of 17.7 79.0
1.2

Is a company I trust 8.4 90.4

I would purchase its products/

1.7

0.3
services in new areas 9.6 88.5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Do not agree Neither agree nor disagree Agree No opinion

under the 38 most admired industries, — Managers were allowed, however, to

including their 1,329 senior and junior evaluate the companies they work for
managers, were contacted via tele- within the same 18 criteria
phone, e-mail, fax, mail and the — The field study took place between
internet August 2002 and September 2002; the
— First, the managers evaluated 18 criteria data analysis and reporting were done
that can potentially generate admira- in October 2002.
tion for a company, over a scale of ten.
Following this, without differentiating Research criteria were as follows:
the industry in which a given company
operates, they identified the company 1 Information and technology invest-
they admired most and provided their ments
reasons 2 Quality of service or product
— After identifying the ‘Most Admired 3 Financial reliability
Company of Turkey’, leading figures 4 New product development, innovation
from 38 different industries were asked 5 Quality of management
to identify the three companies they 6 Social benefits and rights of employees
admired most, on the conditions that 7 Payment policy and wage ranges
they exclude their own companies, 8 Improvement of employee qualifica-
choose companies in their own industry tions
and state their reasons for their choice 9 Marketing and sales strategies

Page 327
The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation
10 Communications and PR
11 Employee qualifications
12 Ethics in competitive behavior
13 Employee satisfaction
14 Customer satisfaction
15 Management and company transpar-
ency
16 Creating value for the investor
17 Social liability
18 Integration into international markets.
The Scope and Course of the ‘Most
Admired Companies’ Research
— Ranking of the criteria (18 criteria that
can potentially generate admiration for
a company)
— The most admired company of Turkey
and their reasons for their choice
— The top three most admired companies
in the industry with reasons (according
to the degree of fondness)
— Evaluation of the most admired
company in the industry he/she oper-
ates within in each criteria on a scale of
10 (18 criteria that can potentially
generate admiration for a company)
— Evaluation of his/her own company in
each criteria on a scale of 10 (18 criteria
that can potentially generate admira-
tion for a company)
— Profile: age, gender, degree of educa-
tion, title, years spent in the company,
favorite magazines and papers, ISP, cell
phone make and model, favorite soccer
team, favorite commercials and promo-
tional campaigns.
‘A MANAGERIAL LOOK AT THE
INTERACTION BETWEEN INTERNAL
COMMUNICATION AND CORPORATE
REPUTATION’ — THE RESEARCH
The Subject of the Research and the
Problem
The interaction between corporate reputa-
tion and internal communication has been
identified by several studies undertaken
Page 328
throughout the world. The subject of this
research is the approach of managers
responsible for communication towards the
interaction between corporate reputation
and internal communication. The question
for the research was as follows: ‘In compa-
nies with high and relatively low reputa-
tion, what is the extent of the weight
given by senior managers in charge of
communication to the interaction between
corporate reputation and internal commu-
nication; and what is their attitude when
facing this interaction?’.
The Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this study’s research was to
obtain the opinions of senior managers in
charge of communication in companies
with high and relatively low reputations
about ‘the interaction between corporate
reputation and internal communication’
and to use this data for concluding whether
such an interaction exists or not.
Main hypotheses
H1: There is an interaction between corpo-
rate reputation and internal communica-
tion.
H2: The approach of the top and bottom 10
companies to internal communication
differs from one another.
The sub-hypotheses tested in the study
— Companies with a high reputation give
more importance to internal communi-
cation compared with companies with
lower reputation
— Companies with a lower reputation
have a stronger belief in the necessity
for an ideal company to have an
internal communication plan than
companies with a high reputation
— The possibility of maintaining an
internal communication plan in a
company is greater in companies with

a high reputation than it is with com-
panies with a lower reputation
— The top 10 companies assign greater
significance to communication plans as
an impact on company reputation than
the bottom 10 companies
— Companies with a higher reputation
consider measurement of internal
communication plans with greater
significance than companies with a
lower reputation
— The rate of measurement of internal
communication activities that actually
take place is greater in companies with
a high reputation than it is in compa-
nies with a lower reputation
— The belief that a company should main-
tain a permanent team exclusively
responsible for internal communication
is a belief more commonly shared in
companies with a high reputation than it
is in companies with a lower reputation
— The possibility of maintaining a perma-
nent team exclusively responsible for
internal communication is greater in
companies with a high reputation than
it is in companies with a lower reputa-
tion.
The t-tests and w-square tests were used to
see the statistical differences between the
top 10 and bottom 10 companies using a
90 per cent confidentiality level.
The Methodology
Because the question of interaction
between corporate reputation and internal
communication in companies — and parti-
cularly in companies that are included on
the reputation list — has hitherto been
overlooked in the literature, this paper
aims to lay out a framework for a discus-
sion. Based on the ‘Most Admired Com-
panies’ research of Capital magazine, this
research is limited in its scope to a compar-
ison of only the top and the bottom 10
companies on Capital’s list and is also lim-
Dortok
ited in its field study of Turkey. Despite its
relatively small sample size, tests were
applied to prove that the results are statisti-
cally significant. Any evaluation apart
from this is the author’s personal qualita-
tive comment.
The following headlines have been used
to prepare the questions:
— Importance of internal communication
— Measuring the internal communication
activities and the frequency of measure-
ment
— Contribution of internal communication
towards reaching the business objectives
— Contribution of internal communica-
tion to the business results of the
company (which also affect the reputa-
tion)
— Contribution of internal communica-
tion to corporate reputation
— Priorities of internal communication
tools
— Existence of an internal communication
team
— Communication revenues
— The share of internal communication
within communication revenues.
The survey consists of three main parts.
First, demographic information of partici-
pants: title, age, gender, years spent in the
company and the industry of the company.
Secondly, participants’ definition of an ideal
company: their opinion about the concept
of ‘interaction between internal communi-
cation and corporate reputation’ for an ideal
company. Thirdly, participants’ description
of the current situation in their companies:
their remarks about ‘interaction between
internal communication and corporate
reputation’ in their company.
Questions for the survey were prepared
in a way suitable for comparative evalua-
tion. A scale of 5 (1: not important at all;
5: very important) has been preferred over
a scale of 10 or 7 in order to make the
Page 329
The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation

comparison easier. The answers given to
the questions have been evaluated in per-
centages. Two questions that were aimed
at finding out the communication budgets
have been prepared with open ends. The
survey was carried out both face-to-face
and through e-mail/fax.
The report of Capital’s ‘Most Admired
Companies’ survey lists only the companies
in top 20 positions. Table 2 gives informa-
tion about the top 10 and bottom 10 com-
panies with which the survey was
conducted.
The Research Calendar and its
Application
The questions of the survey used in the
research have been prepared after the com-
pletion of the first two chapters, which
include the literature study, relevant studies
made in the world as well as Capital’s
‘Most Admired Companies’ research. The
research was completed between March 1,
2003 and August 31st, 2003, a period of
five months.

Table 2: List of Participants in the Survey ‘A Managerial Look at the Interaction between
Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation’

Title Age Sex Industry Years spent Top 10 or

(years) at the bottom 10
company

Communication coordinator 35–40 Male Food 8 Top 10

Deputy general manager 35–40 Male Banking 6 Top 10
responsible for HR
General manager 40–45 Male Durable consumer 4 Top 10
goods
Head of corporate 35–40 Female GSM 1.5 Top 10
communication department
Director of advertisement 35–40 Female Conglomerate 12 Top 10
and PR
Director of corporate 50–55 Male Durable consumer 6 Top 10
communication goods
President responsible for 50–55 Male Conglomerate 28 Top 10
corporate communication
and external relations
Deputy coordinator of 35–40 Male Medicine and health 15 Top 10
corporate communication services, construction
materials, consumer
goods, finance,
information technologies
Director of HR and 35–40 Male Food 3 Bottom 10
administration
Director of PR 35–40 Female Textile 8 Bottom 10
HR officer 25–30 Female Construction 3 Bottom 10
Sales manager 35–40 Male Import 5 Bottom 10
Director of HR and 40–45 Male Food 1 Bottom 10
personnel
HR officer 40–45 Female Finance 8 Bottom 10

Page 330

Evaluating the Findings
One of the most remarkable findings is
that companies with high reputations
attached more importance to internal com-
munication compared with companies
with lower reputations (independent
sample t-test and w-square test; 90 per cent
confidence level). Ideally, both the top 10
and the bottom 10 companies shared the
idea that internal communication is impor-
tant. Both groups, however, stated that the
importance given to internal communica-
tion in their company was lower than it
should be. Also, the importance attached to
internal communication by the bottom 10
companies was relatively lower compared
with the top 10 companies (Figure 4).
Another finding supporting this is that
all of the top 10 companies had an internal
communication plan. Both the top and
the bottom 10 companies shared the idea
that an ideal company should have an
internal communication plan. Nevertheless,
whereas all of the top 10 companies had
Figure 4: Importance of internal
communication
Question 1: How much importance do you think should
be given by companies to internal communication?
Question 13: Generally, how much importance does your
company give to internal communication?
5. Should give highest amount of importance
4. Should give high importance
3. Neutral
2. Should give low importance
1. Should give lowest amount of importance
4.63
Ideal
5.00
4.25
Present
4.17
Top 10 Bottom 10
Average
Dortok
such a plan, the ratio is not higher than
66.7 per cent for the bottom 10 companies
(independent sample t-test and w-square
test; 90 per cent confidence level). Another
result is that the top 10 companies matched
the definition of an ‘ideal company’
(Figure 5).
The question that was posed only to
those companies with an internal commu-
nication plan leads to the conclusion that,
although this difference is not statistically
significantly different, the bottom 10 com-
panies considered their plans sufficient,
which is not the case for the top 10 compa-
nies (Figure 6).
Companies with high corporate reputa-
tions paid more attention to the measure-
ment of internal communication activities
compared to companies with lower reputa-
tions (independent sample t-test and w-
square test; 90 per cent confidence level)
(Figure 7).
Companies with high corporate reputa-
tions stated that internal communication
was playing an important role in achieving
their business objectives and they had per-
Figure 5: Necessity/importance of internal
communication plans
Question 2: How necessary do you think are the internal
communication plans for companies?
5. Very necessary 4. Necessary 3. Neutral
2. Less necessary 1. Not necessary at all
Question 14: Does your company have an internal
communication plan?
1. Yes 2. No
100.0
Necessity
100.0
100.0
Present
66.7
Top 10 Bottom 10
Page 331
The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation
Figure 6: Sufficiency of the internal
communication plan
Question 15: If you have one, do you think that your
company’s internal communication plan is sufficient?
5. Very sufficient 4. Sufficient 3. Neutral
2. Not sufficient 1. Not sufficient at all
3.50
3.75
Top 10 Bottom 10
Figure 7: Importance of measuring the
efficiency of internal communication activities
Question 3: Do you think that it is important to measure
the efficiency of companies’ internal communication
activities?
5. Very important 4. Important 3. Neutral
2. Not important 1. Not important at all
4.63
Importance
level
3.83
Top 10 Bottom 10
Average
sonally experienced this in their companies
(Figure 8).
When asked about which business results
were influenced by internal communication,
the top 10 companies rated themselves
lower than the ideal, whereas the bottom 10
companies rated themselves higher than the
ideal, which is a remarkable result. It can be
seen, however, that the concepts of ‘com-
mitment’ and ‘pride’, which were men-
Page 332
tioned by the top 10 companies as
important business results for them and the
ideal company, can also be found in the
foreground of research on corporate reputa-
tion. These business results match with some
components of corporate reputation, ie
‘employees’ commitment’, ‘a good place to
work’ and ‘value attached to employees by
the company’. When this connection is
taken into consideration, answers given by
the top 10 companies can be evaluated more
realistically. Another important finding
from this question is that internal communi-
cation was mentioned to be important for
the ‘commitment’ business result more by
the top 10 companies than it was mentioned
by the bottom 10 companies (Figure 9).
Although there was a perfect consensus
about the contribution of internal commu-
nication to corporate reputation, the
degree of perceived efficiency of the com-
panies’ own internal communication activ-
ities affecting their reputation was greater
for the top 10 companies compared with
those in the bottom 10 (independent
sample t-test and w-square test; 90 per cent
confidence level) (Figure 10).
As a tool of internal communication, the
‘annual meetings’ were more common in
the top 10 companies. Sharing corporate
strategies, business objectives and future
plans with employees was more important
for companies with high reputations. This
evaluation is supported by the fact that
‘internal publications’ and the ‘intranet’
were vital tools for the top 10 companies
(Figure 11).
The top 10 companies attached more
importance to the measurement of internal
communication activities compared with
the bottom 10. Two interesting points are
that the bottom 10 companies believed that
the measurement should be done for both
abstract (loyalty, recommendation etc) and
concrete values (financial indicators etc)
and that the current situation indicated that
there was only a narrow and insignificant
 Dortok

Figure 8: Influence/contribution of internal communication to achieving business objectives

Question 4: What is the influence/contribution of internal communication to achieving business objectives?
Question 17: What is the influence/contribution of your company’s internal communication activities to achieving your
business objectives?
5. Very influential 4. Influential 3. Neutral 2. Not influential 1. Not influential at all

4.25

Ideal

4.33

4.13

Present

3.83

Top 10 Bottom 10
Average

Figure 9: Influence/contribution of internal communication to business results

Question 5: What is the influence/contribution of internal communication to business results listed below?
Question 18: What is the influence/contribution of your company’s internal communication activities to business results
listed below?
5. Very influential 4. Influential 3. Neutral 2. Not influential 1. Not influential at all

In companies In your company

4.75 4.38
‘Commitment’
4.00 4.00
4.50 4.25
‘Pride’
3.83 4.17
4.38 4.13
‘Efficiency’
4.00 4.33
4.38 4.13
‘Recommendation’
3.67 3.83
4.25 4.25
‘Satisfaction’
3.83 4.33
4.00 3.88
‘Intellectual value
added’ 4.17 4.17

Top 10 Bottom 10 Top 10 Bottom 10

Page 333
The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation

Figure 10: Influence/contribution of internal communication to corporate reputation

Question 6: What is the influence/contribution of internal communication to corporate reputation?
Question 18: What is the influence/contribution of your company’s internal communication activities to your corporate
reputation?
5. Very influential 4. Influential 3. Neutral 2. Not influential 1. Not influential at all

4.50

Ideal

4.67

4.25

Present

3.83

Top 10 Bottom 10

Figure 11: Tools that should be used for internal communication

Question 7: Which of the below should be used for internal communication with priority?
Question 20: What are the internal communication tools you are using most in your company?

Ideal Present
Annual meetings 17.8 22.4
9.6 8.2
17.1 9.9
Oral/written messages from
the top management 11.4 19.1
16.4 17.1
Intranet
14.0 19.1
15.8 12.5
M eetings with the managers periodically
20.2 16.4
15.8 17.8
Internal publications
12.3 10.9
8.6 6.6
Reward ceremonies 8.8 5.5
3.3 6.6
Announcement boards 9.6 9.1
2.6 2.6
Inter-departmental meetings
11.4 7.3
2.0 2.0
Activities (like p icnics) 2.6 2.7
0.7 2.6
Contests 0.9
0.0

Top 10 Bottom 10 Top 10 Bottom 10

gap between the top and the bottom 10 On one hand, the top 10 companies were
companies. Other findings have to be attaching more importance to the measure-
taken into consideration in order to make a ment of internal communication activities
correct evaluation (Figure 12). on both an annual and a project basis

Page 334
 Dortok

Figure 12: Methods of measuring companies’ internal communication activities

Question 8: How do you think the results of companies’ internal communication activities should be measured?
Question 21: How do you think the results of your company’s internal communication activities should be measured?

Ideal Present

25.0 37.5
Business results that are non-
financial like loyalty,
recommendation, satisfaction etc
0.0 40.0

Both financial and non-financial 75.0 62.5

business results as loyalty,
recommendation, satisfaction etc

100.0 60.0

Top 10 Bottom 10 Top 10 Bottom 10

Figure 13: Ideal frequency of measuring the Figure 14: Frequency of measuring the internal
internal communication activities communication activities annually (present)
Question 9: How often do you think companies should Question 16a: Does your company measure its internal
measure their internal communication activities? communication activities?

12.5
Annually 62.5
33.3
Yes, every year 20.0
12.5
On the basis of internal
37.5
communication projects 33.3
Yes, from time
37.5 60.0
Both
to time
16.7 0.0

37.5 Never
Other 20.0

16.7
Top 10 Bottom 10

Top 10 Bottom10

compared with the bottom 10 companies measured once every 6 months, 3 months or
and, in fact, they made regular measure- 2 years, whereas 20 per cent of the bottom 10
ments (Figure 13). On the other hand, some companies did not make any measurement
of the top 10 companies mentioned that they at all (Figures 14 and 15).

Page 335
The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation

Figure 15: Frequency of measuring internal communication activities (present)

Question 16b: Do you measure the effectiveness of internal communication activities in your company?

On Project Basis
0.0

Yes , after every

project 0.0

87.5
Yes, after some
projects 80.0

12.5
Never
20.0

Top 10 Bottom 10

Figure 16: The degree of necessity of a team responsible for internal communication
Question 10: Do you think that companies should have a team responsible for internal communication?
Question 22: Does your company have a team responsible for internal communication?

50.0

Necessity

50.0

62.5

Present
33.3

Top 10 Bottom 10

Consequently, measurement was more tion activities through measurements in

important for the top 10 companies com- certain periods.
pared with the bottom 10 companies and Another crucial finding is that half of the
they evaluated their internal communica- companies in both groups agreed that there

Page 336

should be a team responsible for internal
communication. The proportion of com-
panies that actually had such a team,
although not statistically significantly dif-
ferent, was higher for the top 10 companies
(Figure 16).
When findings related to the communi-
cation budget and the share of internal
communication within this budget were
evaluated, one could not determine a stan-
dard figure for the budget, neither in
actual cases nor as the ideal. In the current
situation, all the companies spent a different
portion of their budget on internal com-
munication, while some companies refused
to answer this question.
It is possible to conclude that companies
with high reputations attached more impor-
tance to internal communication. They had
internal communication plans and they reg-
ularly measured the activities carried out
within the framework of these plans. They
also stated that internal communication con-
tributed to business objectives, business
results and corporate reputation; in addition,
they were using appropriate communica-
tion tools.
CONCLUSION
Establishing relations with employees or, in
other words, undertaking activities aimed
at one-way information flow or increased
employee motivation are not enough on
their own. Instead, internal communication
needs to be undertaken strategically to
encourage employees to a ‘value adding’
attitude, thereby taking the company to
the future. This is the dominant approach
in all the models related to internal com-
munication examined. Internal communi-
cation is a cycle consisting of a
communication strategy appropriate for
the future of the company, an internal
communication plan aligning employees’
expectations with the expectations of the
company, as well as application, measure-
ment and evaluation.
Dortok
On the other hand, the most important
point identified is that the employee is the
leading stakeholder carrying the corporate
reputation, be it good or bad, and influen-
cing it. Similarly, corporate reputation
influences employees as well. If the com-
pany is recommended as a good place to
work, employees can work more happily
and efficiently and the company gains
talented employees.
Models and studies of corporate reputa-
tion prove that employees are important
stakeholders of corporate reputation and
they can influence the company’s business
results, directly or indirectly. At the same
time employees are positively influenced
by good corporate reputation.
The following generalizations can be
made about the evaluations made by
worldwide studies on the subject:
— Corporate reputation influences
employees
— Employees influence corporate reputa-
tion
— Corporate reputation affects the perfor-
mance of the employee
— Companies with high reputations
invest more in internal communication
compared with those with lower repu-
tations
— There is a strategic relation between
internal communication and business
results
— With respect to business results, compa-
nies with high reputations see commu-
nication as a strategic function and
associate communication with making
a difference in competition and solving
strategic problems
— For companies paying attention to
reputation, internal communication is
also very important
— In Europe:
— The most important components
affecting corporate reputation are,
in order, ‘products/services’, ‘social
Page 337
The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation
responsibility’ and ‘work environ-
ment’
— The most influential factor within
the ‘work environment’ component
is perceived as ‘a good place to
work’
— The extent to which the company
is appreciated is affected by the
value attached by the company to
its employees and the rights it
provides for them.
This research: ‘A Managerial Look at the
Interaction Between Internal Communica-
tion and Corporate Reputation’ has the
following conclusions. Compared with
those with lower reputations, companies
with high reputations:
— Give more importance to internal
communication
— Have a well-functioning internal
communication plan
— Undertake more frequent measure-
ment (on an annual or a project
basis)
— Use communication tools for
sharing the business objectives with
employees
— Believe that corporate reputation
has more contribution to/influence
on business objectives and results.
Internal communication cannot be taken
separately from corporate reputation. Inter-
nal communication is the basic component
of corporate reputation. This is the conclu-
sion of all the studies examined as well as
Page 338
this paper. This study also has special sig-
nificance in the way that it presents a
reflection of the current company profiles
in Turkey.
NOTES
1 ‘Stakeholder’, Sabah Business Magazine, No. 6,
August 2003, 36.
2 STRATEJIGfK Corporate Communications
Survey, December 2003, Istanbul, Turkey.
3 STRATEJIGfK Corporate Communications
Survey, December 2003, Istanbul, Turkey.
4 ‘Most Admired Companies’ Capital Magazine,
Istanbul, Turkey, 2002.
REFERENCES
Angelo, P.M. (2000) Strengthening Your Corporate
Reputation, The Gallery, International Association
of Business Communicators, Detroit, MI, avail-
able at: http//www.iabcdetroit.com (accessed
February 2005).
Burson–Marsteller and Wirthlin Worldwide (1998)
‘Maximizing corporate reputation’, Report of the
Study on Corporate Reputation, VA, USA.
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002) ‘Gaps between
the internal and external perceptions of the corpo-
rate brand’, Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3),
152.
Fombrun, C.J. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value
from The Corporate Image, 1st edn, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pruzan, P. (2002) ‘Corporate reputation: image and
identity’, Corporate Reputation Review, 4(1), 53.
Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (2000)
The Expressive Organization, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Vergin, R.C. (2003) Corporate Reputation and the
Stock Market, available at: http//www.toksuve
chase.com/makale05.htm (accessed May 2005).
Young, D. (1996) Building Your Company’s Good
Name: How to Create & Protect the Reputation Your
Organization Wants & Deserves, Macom, New
York, NY.