ABSTRACT 
 
 
 
 
Title of Document: THE ROLES OF INTERNAL PUBLIC 
RELATIONS, LEADERSHIP STYLE, AND 
WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY IN BUILDING 
LEADER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS 
AND FACILITATING RELATIONAL 
OUTCOMES   
  
 Nancy D. McCown, Ph.D., 2008 
  
Directed By: Associate Professor Linda Aldoory, Department 
of Communication 
 
 
Through a qualitative case study, this dissertation?s purpose was to explore the 
confluence of internal public relations, leadership styles, and organizational culture?
specifically in a spiritually based workplace?in order to better understand their 
influence on leader-employee relationship management. The organization researched 
was a bank with approximately 110 employees including several branch locations. 
Data collection triangulation included in-depth interviews, participant observation, 
and document analysis of relevant internal publications and communications. 
Analysis employed grounded theory strategies using the constant comparison method. 
Results indicated that this confluence, driven by the founder/top leader?s faith and 
vision, enacted authentic/transformational/principle-centered/servant leadership style, 
spiritually based organizational culture, and open, two-way symmetrical 
communication to foster intentional, positive, people-driven cultural maintenance, 
interpersonal communication, and employee empowerment/growth strategies. In turn, 
this hybrid environment fostered strong relationship building between employees and 
 
organizational leaders as well as between employees across the organization. The 
confluence also promoted organizational unity as well as intentional leadership 
development among employees through both specific career goal planning and 
opportunities for honing individual employees? leadership skills. These outcomes 
feed back into the leadership, culture, and communication processes to perpetuate a 
cycle of organizational success. This study extended previous research in internal 
public relations, leadership styles, and organizational culture by examining their 
confluence and resulting outcomes to produce a model for internal public relationship 
building. Ultimately, this model and the understanding enhanced by it offers value to 
organizational leaders and public relations practitioners as they seek to build more 
successful leader-employee relationships as well as relationships between employees 
across the organization through heightened trust, control mutuality, job satisfaction, 
and commitment. The research also offers value by describing a model that 
encourages greater empowerment and leadership development among employees at 
various organizational levels, potentially serving to increase productivity and reach 
organizational goals.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE ROLES OF INTERNAL PUBLIC RELATIONS, LEADERSHIP STYLE, AND 
WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY IN BUILDING LEADER-EMPLOYEE 
RELATIONSHIPS AND FACILITATING RELATIONAL OUTCOMES   
 
 
 
By 
 
 
Nancy D. McCown 
 
 
 
 
 
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the  
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 
2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisory Committee: 
Associate Professor Linda Aldoory, Chair 
Professor Elizabeth L. Toth 
Assistant Professor Shannon A. Bowen 
Professor Andrew D. Wolvin 
Professor Dagobert Soergel 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
? Copyright by 
Nancy D. McCown 
2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
Dedication 
 
To my husband, Jon, and my three children, Stephen, Katie, and Christy, for their 
love, sacrifice, patience, support, and prayers during these five long years. 
 
To my Lord and Savior Jesus, who made the ultimate sacrifice so that I might live,  
who carried me through this journey when I was unable to carry myself, 
and who revealed to me the importance of focusing on internal public relations.  
?Woe to you. . . . You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of 
greed and self-indulgence. . . . First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the 
outside also will be clean.? (Matthew 23:25-26) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iii 
Acknowledgements 
 
I gratefully acknowledge the members of my dissertation committee, and especially 
my advisor, Dr. Linda Aldoory, for their valuable wisdom, insights and guidance, as 
well as a few good kicks in the pants to keep me persevering.  I also wish to thank my 
University of Maryland Department of Communication peers and friends for helpful 
feedback, encouragement, and comraderie. Special thanks go to Natalie Tindall and 
Tiffany Derville for sharing their doctoral journeys and documents with me; to 
Hongmei Shen for sharing cultural perspectives and an interest in public relations 
publics; to Jennifer Vardeman for a place to stay during ice storms, a listening ear, 
and friendship above and beyond the call of duty in several dire circumstances; and to 
Heather Davis Epkins, dear sister, constant encourager, and keeper of the faith. 
Finally, to my family, friends, and Messiah College colleagues and students, endless 
thanks for enduring with me and reminding me of my purpose and calling. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iv 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Dedication????????????????????????????..ii 
Acknowledgements????????????????????????...iii 
Table of Contents?????????????????????????..iv 
Chapter 1:  Introduction???????????????????????..1 
 Concepts/Terminology?????????????????????4 
 Research Purpose and Method??????????????????8 
 Delimitations????????????????????????.10 
 Significance of the Research??????????????????.10 
 Outline of the Dissertation???????????????????.12 
Chapter 2: Conceptualization????????????????????....14 
 Public Relations, Internal Publics, and Employee Communications???15 
 Relationship Management???????????????????.29 
 Public Relations Power????????????????????..33 
 Leadership Styles??????????????????????...37 
 Organizational Culture????????????????????...52 
 Research Questions??????????????????????58 
Chapter 3: Method?????????????????????????..61 
 Qualitative Methodology????????????????????61 
 Data Collection Methods????????????????????65 
 Data Collection Procedures???????????????????72 
 Data Analysis and Interpretation?????????????????81 
 Validity and Ethics??????????????????????.83 
Chapter 4: Results?????????????????????????...89 
Chapter 5: Discussion???????????????????????...143 
 Theoretical Connections to Research Findings???????????.144 
 Theoretical Development and Interpretations???????????...155 
 Implications on Theory and Practice???????????????.162 
 Methodological Limitations and Future Research?????????.?166 
 Conclusion?????????????????????????.169 
Appendices????????????????????????????.172 
References????????????????????????????..189 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v 
Figures 
 
Figure 1. McCown?s proposed model of internal relationship building in 
CommunityBankCorp. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
Chapter One ? Introduction 
As the strategic practice of public relations continues to experience a 
paradigmatic shift from promotion and one-way communication toward two-way 
communication and relationship management between organizations and key publics 
(Heath, 2001; Ledingham, 2003), practitioners and scholars alike are recognizing the 
need to further explore the relationship between organizational leaders and their 
internal publics. Employees? communication about their organizations to outsiders 
can have significant consequences on organizational effectiveness and reputation (J. 
E. Grunig & Hung, 2002). Employees also can become internal activists and create 
issues for organizations (McCown, 2005b, 2007), further underscoring the importance 
of understanding organizational leader-internal publics relationship dynamics. 
Finally, leadership may exist not only in an organization?s dominant coalition or top 
leadership/decision-making body (J. E. Grunig, 1992), but also among employees at 
various organizational levels (Berger, 2005). This type of bottom-up or dispersed, 
informal leadership can lead to employee groups rising as leaders to influence 
organizational decisions. 
According to the excellence theory, organizations that value communication 
excellence exhibit to some degree fourteen different characteristics (Dozier, L. A. 
Grunig, & J. E. Grunig, 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & 
Dozier, 2002). Among these characteristics, several apply specifically to internal 
public relations, or the way an organization manages communication between 
organizational decision-makers and employees. First, scholars (Dozier et al., 1995; J. 
E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002) found that organizations that implement 
 2 
two-way symmetrical internal public relations and foster a participative 
organizational culture where employees have significant input into organizational 
decision-making are more likely to practice excellent internal public relations. 
Second, public relations practitioners that have power in or direct access to the 
organization?s dominant coalition are best able to influence the organization?s world 
view on public relations, to help set goals, and to identify and manage relationship-
building communication with strategic publics, including internal ones. In addition, 
because of their important boundary spanning role, public relations practitioners act 
as liaisons between organizational leadership and internal publics, relaying messages 
and helping to ensure that voices on both sides are heard and responded to. According 
to the excellence theory, these public relations characteristics lead to employee job 
satisfaction, which can also increase productivity (Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. Grunig, 
1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). 
Relatedly, the power-control perspective on organizational power helps frame 
employee public relations. The power-control perspective posits that organizational 
leaders will set up organizational structures that satisfice?that are good enough?and 
then beyond that make decisions based on their own interests in power and control 
(Dozier & L. A. Grunig, 1992; Berger, 2005). This puts emphasis on leadership style. 
Management scholars have studied many types of leadership styles in the past century 
(see Bass, 1985 for a thorough review). The excellence study (Dozier et al., 1995; J. 
E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002) determined that authoritarian leadership is 
not conducive to excellent public relations, external or internal. Limited research in 
public relations has explored specific types of leadership styles that would encourage 
 3 
public relations excellence. Exceptions include Aldoory and Toth (2004), who studied 
public relations leaders? preferences for specific organizational leadership styles, and 
my own studies (McCown, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007) regarding leader influence?
specifically leadership style influence?on internal public relations practices. In 
particular, I found that transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), with its 
emphasis on employee empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational goal 
achievement, fosters the participative workplace culture argued for by the excellence 
theory (Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). However, 
no research found specific ways that leadership style and internal public relations 
practices intersect to encourage leadership development among employees.  
Clearly, the relatively unexplored interplay of these concepts prompts the 
need for greater understanding about the relationship between leadership, public 
relations practice, and internal publics. Exploring the influence of leadership on 
internal public relations, leader-employee relationship building, and leadership 
development within the context of a specific type of organizational culture (Denison, 
1990; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1985)?the 
spiritually based workplace (Wagner-Marsh & Conley, 1999)?provided the focus for 
this dissertation. Wagner-Marsh and Conley (1999) proposed a ?fourth wave? theory 
of spiritually based organizations that suggests that such organizations embrace 
several key concepts that appear to dovetail with key characteristics of 
transformational leaders (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), as well as with public relations 
relationship indicators (J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999); thus, 
the organizational context of a spiritually based firm provided a fertile environment in 
 4 
which to explore leadership, internal public relations, and leader-employee 
relationship management. 
Concepts/Terminology 
This dissertation research explored and discussed the confluence of four major 
concepts: internal public relations excellence, specific leadership styles, 
leader/employee relationship management, and organizational culture (specifically, in 
the spiritually based workplace). A comprehensive literature review provided in 
chapter two more thoroughly describes previous research in each area and provides 
explication for each concept. However, the following offers a brief definition of each 
key concept used in the study. 
Internal public relations excellence. At its essence, public relations excellence 
(L. A. Grunig, 1992) involves the practice of public relations that contributes to 
organizational effectiveness by helping to reconcile organizational goals with publics? 
expectations. This occurs through implementing public relations practices that builds 
long-term, quality, organization-publics relationships and is best facilitated when key 
public relations practitioners have access to or power within the organization?s 
dominant coalition. Public relations excellence with internal (or employee) publics 
best occurs in organic, participative organizational cultures where employees enjoy 
two-way, symmetrical communication with organizational leaders and shared 
decision-making (Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). 
In this dissertation, I have defined internal public relations in this way, but also 
further tested the idea that internal public relations excellence under a specific 
leadership style in a spiritually based organizational culture is also characterized by 
 5 
strong relationships between employees and organizational leaders, as demonstrated 
by the presence of key relationship indicators (J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & J. 
E. Grunig, 1999). 
Leadership style. Leadership can take on many forms and styles (see Bass, 
1985). In this dissertation, I explored the influence of leadership styles (those most 
likely to be found in the particular research setting for this dissertation) on internal 
public relations practices, leader-employee relationship management, and leadership 
development among employees. First, transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; 
Burns, 1978) is characterized by employee empowerment, fostering job satisfaction, 
and ultimately helping employees achieve individual and organizational goals; in 
addition, transformational leadership practices often create a specific organizational 
culture and workplace atmosphere that includes employee participation and shared 
decision-making through a variety of actions and tools (Yukl, 2002). Relatedly, 
authentic leadership suggests that ?the authentic leader is confident, hopeful, 
optimistic, resilient, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority to developing 
associates to be leaders. The authentic leader is true to him/herself and the exhibited 
behavior positively transforms or develops associates into leaders themselves? 
(Luthans & Avolio, 2003, p. 243). Other applicable leadership styles include servant 
leadership (Greenleaf, 1977, 1978), which posits that the primary purpose of a 
business should be to create a positive impact on its employees and the greater 
community, and principle-centered leadership, which brings heightened attention to 
the importance of ethics, character, and principles in organizational leadership, as 
well as to the tone those concepts set for organizational culture and performance 
 6 
(Covey, 1992). Leadership is not limited, however, to those people in top 
organizational positions; as Berger (2005, 2007) noted, power may exist in multiple 
coalitions throughout an organization, suggesting that leadership among various 
employees or employee groups may also influence organizational decisions. 
Moreover, some leadership styles encourage leadership development in subordinates 
(employees) as well (e.g., Bass, 1985; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Through this study, I 
have extended understanding of how these types of leadership styles influence and 
work together with internal public relations practices to encourage leader-employee 
relationship building and relational outcomes within a specific organizational context. 
Leader-employee relationship management. Organizational communication 
scholars have long studied superior-subordinate communication at various levels 
within the organization (e.g., Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Cameron & McCollum, 
1993; Fairhurst, 1993; Farmer, Slater, & K. S. Wright, 1998; Haas, B. D. Sypher, & 
H. E. Sypher, 1992; Kirkpatrick, 1996; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Pincus, Rayfield, 
& Cozzens, 1991; Romm, 1999). However, because the power-control perspective 
(Dozier & L. A. Grunig, 1992; Berger, 2005) applies to top organizational decision-
makers and their ability to set organizational structure, culture, and 
processes/practices, in this dissertation I have explored relationships (developed and 
maintained through communication/internal public relations) between the 
organization?s top leader and employees. In particular, I tested relationship 
management indicators, including trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, and 
commitment (J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999), between the 
 7 
top leader and the organization?s employees. Other relational outcomes included 
employee empowerment or leadership development among employees. 
Organizational culture (the spiritually based firm). Schein (1985) defined 
organizational culture as a set of assumption patterns developed through group 
consensus and shared experiences that are ?valid? enough to teach new group 
members (p. 9). Key elements include a consensual mission statement and shared 
purposes or ?reasons to be??both economic and esoteric (p. 53). In short, according 
to Schein, organizational culture allows members to work together comfortably and 
focus on their jobs. Organizational culture may also include employee involvement 
(Denison, 1990), shared values among organizational members (Kotter & Heskett, 
1992), autonomy and entrepreneurship (fostering creativity and independence), and 
respect for the individual through idea solicitation and hands-on involvement (Peters 
& Waterman, 1982, pp. 14-15). In this dissertation, I have drawn from these scholars 
to define organizational culture. 
Extending his definition of organizational culture, Schein (1985) also 
contended that religion often provides a context for organizational members to 
understand difficult or ?unexplainable? situations and ?provides guidelines for what 
to do in ambiguous, uncertain, and threatening situations? (p. 79). Defining a specific 
type of organizational culture, Wagner-Marsh and Conley (1999) proposed a theory 
of the spiritually based firm that suggests that such organizations embrace several key 
concepts critical for achieving a spiritually based organizational culture: ?honesty 
with self [in the organizational leader], articulation of the corporation?s spiritually 
based philosophy, mutual trust and honesty with others, commitment to quality and 
 8 
service, commitment to employees, and selection of personnel to match the 
corporation?s spiritually-based philosophy? (p. 292). Spiritually based organizations, 
according to the theory, need not ascribe to business goals that might be labeled as 
spiritual?such as religious conversion, overtly spiritual services, or religious 
products; however, these organizations? underlying philosophies are spiritual in 
nature, often due to the organizational founders? and leaders? spiritual values. 
Spirituality can find its roots in a variety of religions, practices, and experiences. 
However, in this dissertation, I limited my exploration to a firm with an 
organizational culture rooted in the evangelical Christian tradition of spirituality. 
According to Marsden (1984), people self-identifying as evangelical Christians 
typically emphasize the following beliefs:  ?Reformation doctrine and the final 
authority of Scripture; the real, historical character of God?s saving work recorded in 
scripture; eternal salvation only through personal trust in Christ; the importance of 
evangelism and missions; and the importance of a spiritually transformed life? (pp. 
ix-x). Marsden particularly underscored evangelical Christians? unifying, ?shared 
positive evangelical aspirations to win the world for Christ? (p. xii). 
Research Purpose and Method 
 Against this backdrop of four converging phenomena, then, this study had 
four specific goals. The first goal was to explore application and expand 
understanding of the influence of several potentially exising leadership styles?
transformational (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), authentic (Lutans & Avolio, 2003), and 
perhaps principle-centered (Covey, 1992) or servant (Greenleaf, 1977, 1978)?on 
internal public relations practices in a particular organization. Although I completed 
 9 
several studies opening the door to this particular topic (2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007), 
further exploration and testing has assisted in greater theoretical development 
regarding leader influence on internal public relations practices. A second goal was to 
test the application of relationship management theory to the organizational leader-
internal public relationship within the context of a particular organization. My 
previous work (McCown 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007) explored several relationship 
management concepts such as trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment 
(J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999), but again, further 
exploration has extended relationship management theory to an internal public 
relations setting. The third and fourth goals involved discovering potential confluence 
between certain leadership styles, excellent internal public relations practices, and 
leader-employee relationship management and relational outcomes within the context 
of a spiritually based firm (Wagner-Marsh & Conley, 1999). 
 In pursuing these goals, I conducted individual in-depth interviews, 
participant observation, and document analysis in a case study of employee leadership 
development and relationship management between organizational leadership and the 
internal public?as facilitated by public relations practices?in a spiritually based 
firm. Over the course of four months, I studied a corporation with more than 100 
employees in several branch locations; this organization is further described in 
chapter three. I conducted 21 interviews with organizational top leadership, public 
relations staff, and employees representing all levels at the organization. In addition, I 
spent approximately 10 hours observing employee-leader interactions and meetings. 
Finally, document analysis included an examination of the organization?s internal 
 10 
communication materials, including a corporate foundations booklet, vision and 
values statement, web site, and employee newsletters. 
Delimitations 
 Due to the broad nature of each research area as well as time constraints, 
delimitations helped to more specifically set the scope of my study.  First, regarding 
employee public relations excellence, although a broad understanding of publics 
provides the framework for this study, I did not test for (nor did I find) employee 
publics as internal activists in my research organization. Therefore, I excluded 
activism literature from my literature review and subsequent interview protocols. 
Second, I narrowed my focus in the extremely broad field of leadership to leadership 
styles that I found in my particular research organization, namely transformational, 
principle-centered, servant, and authentic. Third, the relationship management 
literature covers public relations relationships in a broad range of contexts. This study 
examined only relationships between an organizational leader and members of the 
employee public and how internal public relations practices contribute to those. 
Finally, regarding organizational culture and the spiritually based firm, although 
spirituality may include many religious and spiritual traditions and practices, I 
delimited to evangelical Christianity under the term spirituality. Again, this is due to 
the spirituality of my research organization?s leader, who both serves as founder and 
president of the organization. My espousal of the same faith traditions as the 
organization?s top leader may have also facilitated access to this company. 
Significance of the Research 
 11 
This research contributes to both public relations scholarship and practice 
through exploring the confluence of several important and growing phenomena. In a 
recent report to the PRSA Commission on Public Relations Education, Toth (2006) 
found that public relations leaders perceived an increased importance on 
organizations? internal (employee) publics. In addition, Toth also reported 
practitioners? perceived urgency to align public relations practice with relationship 
model-based business strategies; this dovetails with recent public relations theory 
regarding relationship management as well. Regarding leadership, the Plank Center 
for Public Relations Studies at the University of Alabama (www.plankcenter.ua.edu) 
recently began encouraging scholarship linking leadership and public relations 
through significant research grant funding for studies in this area. Finally, according 
to The Princeton Religious Research Index, religious beliefs and practices have seen a 
dramatic increase in the past decade (Gunther, 2001), with recent print publications 
and broadcast news programs featuring numerous stories surrounding growing 
workplace spirituality in the United States. 
 This dissertation contributes to public relations theory by building a model to 
describe the interplay of these phenomena. However, this study aims to go beyond 
scholarly contributions to provide practical value as well. As noted earlier, Toth 
(2006) reported that practitioners themselves have identified internal communication 
as a key area of concern for future public relations effectiveness. I believe the results 
and interpretations of this dissertation research will help shed light on how internal 
public relations may be practiced with even greater success, particularly through a 
case study of a particular type of leadership?s influence within the context of a 
 12 
specific organizational culture. By developing a model to describe the confluence of 
one organization?s leadership style, organizational culture, and internal public 
relations practices, I have offered a normative description of how practitioners and 
leaders might work together to develop effective internal public relations practices 
with their own internal publics or employees. Ultimately, this model and the 
understanding enhanced by it offers value to organizational leaders and public 
relations practitioners as they seek to build more successful leader-employee 
relationships as well as relationships between employees across the organization 
through heightened trust, control mutuality, job satisfaction, and commitment. The 
research also offers value by describing a model that encourages greater 
empowerment and leadership development among employees at various 
organizational levels, potentially serving to increase productivity and reach 
organizational goals. 
Outline of the Dissertation 
 The second chapter of this dissertation reviews the major theoretical concepts 
framing this dissertation. These include public relations and publics, focusing 
particularly on employees as an organization?s internal public; internal public 
relations excellence and leadership as it relates to public relations excellence; 
relationship management, including relationship antecedents; power-control theory; 
potentially relevant theories of leadership, focusing attention on those potentially 
relevant to the current study; employee communication, including workplace 
communication climate and leader-follower communication; and definitions of 
organizational culture, focusing specifically on the spiritually based workplace. 
 13 
Chapter two forms the theoretical basis for my research and will be referenced 
throughout the remainder of this dissertation. 
Chapter three, the methodology chapter, details my rationale for choosing a 
qualitative case study to explore the study?s research questions, and chapter four is 
the compilation of data collection results from interviews, participant observation, 
and document analysis. I have organized the chapter around the four research 
questions found at the end of chapter two. Interview participants, researcher 
observations, and content from internal document analysis clearly identified the 
founder?s religious faith and vision as the organization?s driving force; growing out of 
that faith, specific leadership styles, cultural values, and internal communication 
processes worked consistently and cooperatively to foster a hybrid environment 
conducive to specific relational and employee leadership development outcomes.  
The final chapter offers conclusions, limitations, and implications of the 
research; a proposed model; and directions for future study. The results raised 
important insights into the confluence of internal public relations and leadership style 
within the context of the spiritually based firm workplace culture. In particular, 
outcomes of this confluence included relational strength between employees and 
organizational leaders as well as between employees across the organization. In 
addition, the confluence appears to promote organizational unity and strong 
leadership development among employees, whether through career goals and 
positional advancement or through honing individual leadership skills in their 
employee groups. Appendices include recruitment materials, IRB and additional 
consent forms, and the interview protocol. 
 14 
Chapter Two ? Conceptualization 
 The purpose of this dissertation research was to explore the interplay of 
leadership style, internal public relations, leader-employee relationship management, 
and leadership development among employees within the context of a spiritually 
based workplace. Specifically, this study expanded understanding of leadership style 
influence on internal public relations, tested the application of relationship 
management theory to the organizational leader-internal public relations, and 
discovered confluence between particular types of leadership style, excellent internal 
public relations, leader-employee relationship management, and leadership 
development among employees within a spiritually based firm. 
 In this chapter, several key research streams provide a framework for the 
research. First, I explicate the concepts of public relations and employee publics. I 
discuss relevant research regarding internal public relations excellence and leadership 
as it relates to public relations excellence. Second, I explore public relations as 
relationship management, and explicate the relationship antecedents. Third, I describe 
theories of leadership and public relations power, beginning with the power-control 
perspective. In particular, I discuss transformational leadership, principle-centered 
leadership, servant-leadership, and authentic leadership, due to their appearance in the 
type of organization in which this study is situated. Finally, I discuss definitions of 
organizational culture, focusing specifically on the spiritually based workplace, which 
provides understanding of the organizational context in which the dissertation 
research was conducted. I also briefly discuss literature related to leadership and 
 15 
organizational culture. I end this chapter with the research questions that guided this 
study. 
Public Relations, Internal Publics, and Employee Communications 
Definitions of public relations 
Public relations has been defined as ?the management of communication 
between an organization and its public? (Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p. 7). More recently, 
Cutlip, Center, and Broom (2006) refined this definition to include organizational 
managers? or leaders? responsibilities as well as relationship negotiation, suggesting 
that public relations is ?the management function that establishes and maintains 
mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom 
its success or failure depends? (p. 6). Of particular note, Vercic and Grunig (2000) 
suggested that public relations is situated in organizations and must be understood in 
relationship to organizational practices, economics, power, structure, and culture. In 
the landmark excellence study, sponsored by the International Association of 
Business Communicators, L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, and Ehling (1992) also 
discussed the role of public relations as communication management crucial to 
helping organizations build strong relationships with key publics; in fact, the final 
excellence study book (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002) highlighted this relationship-
building function as the greatest value of public relations to the organizations it 
serves.  
Taking a more rhetorical-critical approach, Botan (1989) offered that public 
relations is a process ?using communication to exchange meaning between 
organizations and their publics? (p. 100). J. E. Grunig and White (1992) noted that in 
 16 
addition to building relationships with all publics affected by organizational action, 
organizations have a moral obligation to make those relationships increasingly 
dialogical. Toth and Heath (1992) concurred, positing that dialogue is both the goal 
and the ethical responsibility of public relations, serving society through open 
discussion of vital viewpoints from both organizations and their publics.  
For this study, I have melded these management-based and rhetorical 
definitions together, because collaboratively, they highlight public relations? 
situational reality within the context of the organization as well as the 
organization?s?and, by implication, the organizational leaders??responsibility for 
managing communication to build relationships with key publics. They also address 
the fact that it is in these very relationships that leaders and employees find meaning, 
and that all voices are valuable in organizational-publics relationships. Thus, in my 
study, I view public relations as the management function that builds mutually 
beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics through dialogic 
communication and by offering a balance of cooperation and dominance between 
communicators?to give voice and meaning to all parties involved. 
Theories of publics related to internal publics 
Because public relations as a discipline carries the specific responsibility of 
building and nurturing relationships between an organization and its many publics, it 
is important to build a foundation of understanding regarding the term publics before 
narrowing specifically to the focus of this study, internal (employee) publics.  
Bringing together many views, Vasquez and Taylor (2001) categorized 
publics into four perspectives: mass, situational, agenda-building, and homo narrans. 
 17 
Finding roots in democratic philosophy, Vasquez and Taylor?s mass publics 
perspective normatively defines a public as a permanent, collective entity that should 
participate in self governance; communication occurs through the democratic process 
as the public initiates communication and action in response to civic concerns. In the 
agenda-building view of publics, the scholars suggested that publics arise around 
political issues; they exist because of their involvement and influence in political 
conflicts, and their duty is to communicate in order to mobilize support and expand 
political issues so that they enter the radar screen (agenda) of political decision-
makers. Vasquez and Taylor also classified a homo narrans perspective on publics, 
suggesting that these ?evolved? publics are more ?communication-centered? (p. 146). 
In this view, publics are rhetorical communities of people who share a symbolic 
reality they have created in response to a particular problem or situation. They exist 
as a public because they have participated in a communicative process surrounding an 
event of concern and have developed a ?group consciousness? as a result (p. 147).  
Vasquez and Taylor?s (2001) fourth categorization of publics, the situational 
perspective (J. E. Grunig, 1997; J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984), has particularly moved 
public relations theory forward in describing the organization-publics relationship. 
Some scholars have used the terms ?publics? and ?stakeholders? somewhat 
synonymously. For example, scholars have defined stakeholders as ?any individual or 
group who can affect or is affected by the actions, decisions, policies, practices, or 
goals of the organization? (Freeman, 1984, p. 25); as those people who can affect 
organizational goal attainment (Lerbinger, 1997); as contributing to an organization?s 
ability to create wealth (Post, Preston, & Sachs, 2002); as ?persons or groups that 
 18 
hold something of value that can be used as rewards or constraints in exchange for 
goods, services, or organizational policies and operating standards? (Heath, 1997, p. 
28); and as creators of organizational structure through organizational communication 
and shared zones of meaning (Heath, 1994, 1997).  
Building on ideas from Ferguson (1984) and others, several scholars (J. E. 
Grunig, 1997; J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 2000; J. E. Grunig & Repper, 1992) noted 
subtle differences between the terms publics and stakeholders. Stakeholders, they 
argued, are connected to organizations because of the potential consequences they 
may have on each other; thus, stakeholders have a ?stake? in an organization. 
However, because members in the stakeholder category are often passive, public 
relations practitioners must carefully analyze stakeholders to set strategic 
organizational communication and relationship-building priorities. When 
stakeholders become more aware or active in their behaviors, moving from passive to 
active communication about a particular issue, they enter the category of publics. 
Thus, stakeholders emerge as publics when they begin to recognize particular issues 
affecting them. Publics then organize, take actions, communicate with, and exert 
pressure on the organizations posing the problems or opportunities in an attempt to 
effect response or change.  
Situational theory of publics. J. E. Grunig (1997) built on Dewey (1927) and 
Blumer (1966) to develop a situational theory of publics, suggesting that publics act 
as a result of three independent variables in any given situation: problem recognition, 
constraint recognition, and level of involvement. These three variables influence a 
public?s active (information seeking) and passive (information processing) 
 19 
communicative behaviors. The higher a public?s problem recognition and level of 
involvement, and the lower the constraint recognition, the more that public will 
actively seek information, increasing potential effects on an organization. 
 The situational theory of publics provides a basis for public relations 
practitioners to measure, identify, and segment publics in order to better understand 
their nature and to appropriately plan organizational communication. J. E. Grunig and 
Hunt (1984) suggested that publics move from being of no consequence to the 
organization to a three-stage development process ranging from latent to active 
communication behaviors. J. E. Grunig and Repper (1992) further refined publics into 
four theoretical types: all-issue publics, apathetic publics, single-issue publics, and 
hot-issue publics. 
For public relations practitioners to best plan organization-publics 
communication and relationship-building, segmentation must occur (J. E. Grunig, 
1997; J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; J. E. Grunig & Repper, 1992); this applies to 
internal publics as well. As publics become increasingly active, strategic 
organizational-publics communication can also increase, particularly at the ?issues? 
stage, where publics? behavioral and communicative activities have critical 
consequences (J. E. Grunig, 1997; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). 
Several scholars (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Friedman & Miles, 2002, 2004; 
Frooman, 1999; J. E. Grunig & Repper, 1992; J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 2000; L. 
A. Grunig et al., 2002; Hallahan, 2001; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997) have 
researched and developed theoretical public relations programs for dealing with 
publics as they move from the active stage to an issues stage. As publics evolve 
 20 
through these stages, organizational communication processes with those publics 
should shift from long-term, relationship-building communication to greater public 
involvement in organizational decision-making processes and greater use of mass 
media and interpersonal communication. Thus, practitioners most effectively manage 
issues through strategically involving publics in organizational decision-making 
processes before problems become recognized as issues.  
Clearly, segmenting and monitoring publics or stakeholders?internal as well 
as external?to develop and implement strategic communication and relationship-
building activities are recognized as crucial organizational activities. Although some 
management scholars (i.e., Post et al., 2002) do not specify organizational roles 
responsible for these tasks, public relations scholars (i.e., J. E. Grunig & L. A. 
Grunig, 2000) assign this function to public relations managers who contribute ?to 
overall strategic management by diagnosing the environment to make the overall 
organization aware of stakeholders, publics, and issues as they evolve? (p. 312).  
Research in public relations related to internal publics 
Some scholars (i.e., Karlberg, 1996) have suggested that public relations 
research has paid far too little attention to the voices of publics in the organization-
publics relationship equation. In particular, as PRSA?s Commission on Public 
Relations Education (2006) pointed out, recently identified public relations trends 
have practitioners and scholars calling for increased focus on an organization?s 
internal public?its employees?as a key public (p. 20). 
According to L. A. Grunig and associates (2002), an organization has 
excellent public relations practices, and, by extension, is more effective if it manifests 
 21 
certain characteristics. Looking at an organization?s communication function from a 
public relations perspective, scholars (Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. 
Grunig et al., 2002) identified 14 characteristics of excellent public relations 
programs. Of particular relevance to this dissertation research, the excellence study 
team suggested that organizations should adopt a two-way symmetrical 
communication worldview?also called the mixed motives model (Dozier et al., 
1995; Murphy, 1991) or collaborative advocacy (Spicer, 1997)?which strives to 
balance, over time, an organization?s interests with those of its internal and external 
publics. Specifically, J. E. Grunig (1992) posited that excellent, two-way symmetrical 
public relations both advocates for the organization by influencing publics to line up 
with organizational goals and collaborates with publics to respond to their needs 
through organizational reshaping. Relatedly, the excellence study team called for 
organizational leaders to practice two-way, symmetrical internal communication by 
?staying close? to employees?one of an organization?s strategic publics.   
 To best assist organizational leaders in developing an organization?s 
symmetrical communication systems (internally and externally), excellence study 
scholars posited that the public relations director should have power in or with the 
organization?s dominant coalition, or decision-making leadership, which sets the tone 
for mission, structure, culture, and policies (J. E. Grunig, 1992). Thus, a fluid process 
or ?moving equilibrium? (J. E. Grunig, 2001, p. 24) develops, whereby public 
relations practitioners use research and dialogue to manage communication between 
organizational leaders and their publics (including employees), bringing about 
?symbiotic changes in the ideas, attitudes, and behaviors? (p. 12) for both parties. In 
 22 
this way, practitioners facilitate and sustain mutually beneficial organization-publics 
relationships through communication symmetry. 
 By extension, excellent dominant coalitions (leaders) network heavily with 
employees, building relationships through communication and interaction (J. E. 
Grunig, 1992). Leaders also encourage symmetrical internal communication through 
employee participation in decision-making. As L.A. Grunig et al. (2002) argued, 
participative cultures foster a teamwork atmosphere where organizational leaders 
value employees ?as whole people, not just employees? (p. 483). In this culture, the 
dominant coalition and employees share both vision and power; although leaders 
relinquish some power by encouraging a participative process, the organization gains 
power collectively through employee empowerment and decision-making autonomy. 
Excellent leaders also help create ?order out of the chaos that empowerment of people 
can create? (J. E. Grunig, 1992, p. 16). In addition, organic organizational structure 
encourages excellent internal public relations through decentralized, less formal, and 
often more complex communication processes, allowing room for employee 
participation in decision-making. Hatch (1997) posited that participative decision-
making facilitates lateral rather than simply top-down communication. L. A. Grunig 
et al. (2002) noted that such empowerment and symmetrical communication leads to 
even greater employee satisfaction than more authoritarian organizational cultures 
and leadership styles. 
Beyond the excellence study (Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. 
Grunig et al., 2002), scholarship specifically regarding internal public relations 
(employee communications) theory and practice has been fairly limited, addressing a 
 23 
broad range of employee communication facets but only scratching the surface in 
strong theory development. For example, one study (Lauzen & Dozier, 1992) 
addressed the role of an organization?s public relations manager in mediating 
organizational environments, suggesting that when changeability of publics 
(including internal or employee publics) increases in an organizational environment, 
enactment of public relations manager roles increases?but only in proportion to the 
openness of the dominant coalition to its environment (p. 216). Another study 
(Wright, 1995) found that although corporate CEO?s and public relations 
?executives? agreed on the importance of employee communications, the public 
relations function remains largely ?journalistic? in its internal communications, 
focusing on communication content in newsletters and other ?products?  rather than 
building relationships with employees; Wright also confirmed the importance of top 
public relations ?executives? reporting directly to the organization?s dominant 
coalition in order to influence needed changes in internal public relations/employee 
communication. Looking at employee communication from a relationship 
management paradigm, Jo and Shim (2005) found that ?employees receiving positive 
communication are more likely to be motivated to form trusting relationships with the 
management level? (p. 278). Similarly, several of my own studies (McCown, 2005a, 
2006) found that organizational leaders employing transformational leadership style 
with individualized consideration strategies enhanced internal public relations 
excellence, employee communication, relationship-building, and leader-employee 
trust. I also found that employees perceiving internal communication gaps, 
particularly in turbulent situations, may become ?activist,? forcing organizational 
 24 
leadership to become more symmetrical in communication and take steps to improve 
internal public relations practices argued.  
Finally, two studies (Murgolo-Poore, Pitt, & Ewing, 2002; Murgolo-Poore, 
Pitt, Berthon, & Prendegast, 2003) examined organizational use of the intranet in 
employee communications. The first study (Murgolo-Poore et al., 2002) introduced 
an intranet effectiveness checklist which public relations practitioners may use to test 
how well an organization?s intranet helps to successfully manage organizational 
operations, culture, and facilitation of members? collaboration, cooperation, and 
communication. The second study (Murgolo-Poore et al., 2003) used the previously 
developed scale to predict a positive correlation between effective organizational 
intranets and intelligence dissemination (?the process and extent of market 
information exchange within a given organization,? p. 175) inside the organization. 
Theories of employee communications 
Expanding the literature review to include management, communication 
management, and marketing/marketing communications perspectives on employee 
communication, more research applies to this study. The existing literature on 
employee or internal communication may be categorized into two areas: workplace 
communication climate and leader-follower (or manager-subordinate) 
communication. 
Workplace communication climate. A number of communication, 
management, and marketing scholars explored internal communication from several 
angles, examining workplace communication climate as a factor affecting employee 
communication. For example, Ruppel and Harrington (2000) extended previous 
 25 
stakeholder research to internal (employee) stakeholders, measuring employee 
perceptions of ?right,? ?just,? and ?fair? treatment using Victor and Cullen?s (1988) 
ethical work climate instrument. Results supported that managers who encourage 
ethical, benevolent workplace climates enhance employee communication as well as 
increase trust in manager-employee relationships; both of these outcomes positively 
influence employee perceptions of innovation and organizational commitment. In 
addition, Smidts, Pruyn, and vanRiel (2001) developed a model linking an 
organization?s external prestige with employee communication; in particular, an 
organization?s open, positive communication climate?even more so than its 
communication content, although keeping employees informed remains important?
enhances employee identification with the organization, which, in turn, enhances 
organizational reputation. Extending their argument further, the authors posited that 
?managers should therefore pay serious attention to internal communication climate 
by providing each employee with adequate information and the opportunities to speak 
out, get involved, be listened to, and actively participate? (p. 1059). 
Looking at internal communication needs during restructurings and 
reorganizations, Young and Post (1993) studied ten U.S. firms and determined that 
the most ?effective managers strategically use communication to manage tough 
organizational changes? (p. 31). The authors identified eight factors that determine 
employee communication effectiveness: the chief executive?s commitment to the 
necessity of employee communication and direct involvement in communication (the 
most significant factor); consistency between managers? words and actions regarding 
employee communication; commitment to two-way communication and dialogue; 
 26 
emphasis on face-to-face communication between top management and employees; 
shared?rather than centralized?responsibility for employee communications 
(spread from top leaders through ?local? managers); candor in sharing both bad news 
and good news; understanding employees as ?customers? and serving their 
communication needs; and understanding employee communications as a process, not 
as products such as newsletters or slide shows (pp. 34-40).  
Several scholars (Asif & Sargeant, 2000; Dolphin, 2005) approached internal 
communications from a marketing perspective. Using grounded theory, Asif and 
Sargeant (2000) developed a model that, in essence, calls for cooperative 
communication processes?both informal and formal?between employees and 
management/leadership. This model argued for communication processes similar to 
those proposed by the excellence study?s symmetrical view of public relations 
(Dozier et al, 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). This internal 
communication process, Asif and Sargeant (2000) argued, resulted in six key 
outcomes: sense of shared vision, job/personal satisfaction, service focus, 
empowerment, organizational commitment, and loyalty (through sustained 
employment at the organization). Variables moderating the outcomes included 
communication volume, management style, communication style (ranging from brief 
to verbose), length of employee service, and employee position. In addition, 
DeBussy, Ewing, and Pitt (2003) explored the use of intranet technologies with 
?internal marketing,? developing a model to combine new media with 
stakeholder/communication theories (again, without references to public relations 
scholarship on stakeholder theories). Specifically, the authors found that new media 
 27 
usage?particularly the intranet?has a positive impact on effective internal 
marketing communications. They also argued that ?Internet communication 
technologies empower employees and contribute to the democratization of the 
workplace,? spreading power beyond centralized control of employee newsletters and 
other traditional internal communication channels (p. 157). Finally, Dolphin?s (2005) 
study found that communication executives (without referring to those executives as 
public relations practitioners) considered employee communications critical to an 
organization?s success, and that relationship-building rather than information 
dissemination was the ?key to success in employee relations in the future? (p. 185).  
Leader-follower communication. In addition to workplace communication 
climate, scholarship regarding employee communication has focused heavily on 
communication between leaders, managers, or supervisors and employees. For 
example, Therkelsen and Fiebich?s (2003) macro review of employee relations 
literature argues that the majority of studies support two principles: the primacy of the 
employee public and the critical role of the frontline supervisor in effective employee 
communication (p. 120).  
Several scholars (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1996; Romm, 
1999) looked at other aspects of leader communication with employees. Leadership?s 
internal communication affects follower perceptions of leader charisma and 
effectiveness based on vision content (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999), organizational 
performance (Kirkpatrick, 1996), and leader delivery of the vision (Romm, 1999), the 
latter weighing most heavily on follower perceptions. Through employee 
communication, leaders create shared vision of organizational goals (Cameron & 
 28 
McCollum, 1993; Fairhurst, 1993; Farmer et al., 1998; Haas, B. D. Sypher, & H. E. 
Sypher, 1992; Peters & Waterman, 1982). Also, employees? constrained direct access 
to upper-level leaders forces trickle-down of most vision communication through 
organized communication campaigns, leaving middle- and lower-level leaders 
responsible for daily vision implementation and sustenance (Fairhurst, 1993). Rather 
than through publications, which use one-way communication, leaders may enhance 
management-employee relationships more effectively through two-way interpersonal 
communication channels such as team meetings, group problem-solving sessions, and 
supervisor briefings (Cameron & McCollum, 1993). In addition, Pincus et al. (1991) 
found that despite strongly held beliefs about internal communication activities? value 
and impact, CEOs displayed mixed feelings about program effectiveness and their 
own limited direct communication with employees below middle-management level. 
Other scholars (Kim, 2002; Sagie, 1996; Sobo & Sadler, 2002) examined 
more specifically how managers/leaders communicate with employees to enhance 
participative decision-making. For example, Kim (2002) studied participative 
management in public agencies, finding that when managers use participative 
management styles and work to improve communication and when employees 
perceive their understanding of organizational goals/vision and involvement in 
strategic planning as high, employee job satisfaction increases (p. 234-235); based on 
these results, the author suggested that public sector leaders consider changing their 
organizational culture and leadership style from hierarchical and vertical to one of 
more participative, empowered planning and decision-making. Similarly, Sobo and 
Sadler (2002) studied leader-employee communication in a health-care setting, 
 29 
determining that a leader-initiated ?Employee Leadership Council? facilitating 
employee input through ?innovative ideas? and ?constructive expression of 
dissatisfaction? improved employee morale. Specifically, because of communication 
initiatives, employee perceptions of the organization?s commitment to employees, 
open and honest communication channels, leadership value of employee input, 
employee trust in leadership?s decision-making, and organizational loyalty (i.e., the 
organization is a ?good place to work?) all increased dramatically in just one year. 
Finally, Sagie (1996) studied the influence of leader communication style and 
participative goal setting on employee performance and attitudes. Generally, 
employee teams with highly directive leaders performed better, but those with 
participative goal-setting strategies had improved attitudes (including, i.e., 
commitment to the goal and work satisfaction); thus, a combination of high 
directiveness in communication with ?autonomy, innovation, and full involvement of 
employees in goal setting and decision making? may prove most fruitful in meeting 
organizational goals (p. 61). 
Relationship Management 
Ferguson (1984) first suggested relationship management as a public relations 
paradigm shift more than two decades ago. Building on her scholarship as well as 
others? research, (i.e., Ehling, 1992; J. E. Grunig, 1992), Ledingham and Bruning 
(2000a) noted a shift in public relations, moving from manipulation and persuasion to 
a relationship-building focus. Recently, Flynn (2006) advocated a multi-dimensional 
perspective of public relations that seeks to balance dialogue, collaboration, and 
 30 
negotiation between organizations and their publics?brought about through 
management of communication in relationship building. 
Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997, 2000) first constructed a theoretical model 
for relationship management, highlighting several key steps, including identifying the 
antecedents, states, and consequences of organization-publics relationships. Further 
studies identified dimensions of ?good? organization-publics relationships?trust, 
openness, involvement, commitment, and investment (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998); 
developed a scale for measuring the effect of and long-term changes in organization-
publics relationship perceptions (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999); underscored the 
importance of strategic public perceptions and two-way symmetrical public relations 
practices in bringing mutual benefit to both publics and the organization (Bruning & 
Ledingham, 2000; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000b); and supported the idea that public 
relations adds value to an organization through relationship management occurring 
continuously over time (Ledingham, Bruning, & Wilson, 1999). 
Measuring organization-publics relationships 
Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) developed guidelines for measuring 
organization-publics relationships through six key characteristics: control mutuality, 
trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship, and communal relationship (p. 
3); in addition, they noted that these indicators are critical for building effective 
relationships with publics?including internal (employee) publics. Likewise, building 
on previous public relations theory, J. E. Grunig and Huang (2000) recognized the 
need to identify ?strategic constituencies? for relationship building, noting the 
 31 
importance of measuring these characteristics in internal as well as external 
constituencies (p. 31).  
More recently, scholars have begun testing and applying relationship 
management theories in a variety of settings and organizations. (For a synopsis of 
organization-public relationship research published between 1985 and 2004, see Ki & 
Shin, 2006.) For example, Ledingham (2001) extended relational theory into 
government-citizen relationships, arguing that public relations contributed to 
community building and underscoring the need for evaluation of relationship-building 
efforts; of particular note, Ledingham pointed to identification of commonalities 
between organizations and publics as key to strengthening relationships as well as to 
the mutual benefits afforded to both parties through effectively managing 
relationships long-term. Turning to the university setting, Bruning (2002) examined 
relationship building as a student retention strategy, finding significant links between 
relationship attitudes and overall student satisfaction with the institution. Bruning and 
Galloway (2003) expanded the scope of Bruning and Ledingham?s (1999) relational 
scale to include two dimensions of personal relationship commitment, personal and 
structural; findings suggested that these dimensions provide a more complete 
understanding of organization-publics relationships. Also using Bruning and 
Galloway?s (2003) scale, two studies further linked satisfaction in organization-public 
relationships with behavioral intent. In the first study, Bruning, Castle, and Schrepfer 
(2004) tested relational satisfaction between customers and an electric company; the 
second study (Bruning, Langenhop, & Green, 2004) examined city-resident 
relationships through evaluation housing and city service satisfaction, showing that 
 32 
the city?s relationship-building can positively affect resident attitudes, evaluations, 
and behaviors. 
Other relationship management studies offer further insights into the benefits 
of effective organization-publics relationships. First, Ni (2006) combined 
management literature?s resource-based view with relationship building strategies to 
discover several key characteristics of relationships offering competitive advantages; 
these include the ideas that strong relationships were valuable, rare, difficult to 
imitate, and hard to be substituted, and that such strong relationships contribute to 
organizational strategy implementation. Second, Hall (2006) adapted Hon and J. E. 
Grunig?s (1999) relationship measurement guidelines to measure trust, control 
mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction, and added two other factors?communal 
relationship types and exchange relationship types?to explore the impact of 
corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations programs on company-
customer relationships. Her results demonstrated links between the programs, 
customer awareness of them, and communal types of relationships. In addition, 
Scott?s (2007) chapter on applying relationship measures to public relations practice 
offered insights into using relational measures developed and tested by scholars in 
actual business settings for real clients. She highlighted valuable outcomes of using 
such instruments including improving access to and gaining positive attention from 
organizations? dominant coalitions, increased opportunities for practitioners to be 
seen as crucial for effective company management, increased transparency of the 
connections between building effective public relationships with achieving 
 33 
organizational goals (particularly the bottom line), and the critical importance of trust 
in the organization-publics relationship. 
Public Relations Power 
Understanding the literature in leadership first requires an understanding of 
power itself. As Berger and Reber (2006) noted, power and influence share some 
similarities. Citing a host of scholars (Barbalet, 1985; Cobb, 1984; Greiner & Schein, 
1988, L. A. Grunig, 1992; Hay & Hartel, 2000; Lauzen & Dozier, 1992), Berger and 
Reber summarized that ?power is often described as a capacity or something 
possessed that allows one to get things done or get others to do what you want them 
to do? (p. 3). Relatedly, Berger and Reber (citing Kanter, 1977; Mintzberg, 1983) 
stated that influence ?is the use of power to get things done, or to accomplish 
something, for some purpose in organizations? (p. 4). Integrating these definitions, 
Berger and Reber arrived at the following definition of power and influence: ?the 
ability to get things done by affecting the perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, 
decisions, statements, and behaviors of others? (p. 5).   
Building on these conceptualizations of power, the power-control perspective 
(Berger, 2005; Dozier & L. A. Grunig, 1992) provides important understanding prior 
to exploring research in leadership. This perspective suggests that leaders will set up 
organizational structures that satisfice?that are good enough?and then beyond that 
make decisions based on their own interests in power and control. In fact, L. A. 
Grunig (1992) determined that an organization?s public relations practices are the 
way they are ?because the people who have power in an organization choose that 
behavior? (p. 23). Further, the excellence study (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002) posited 
 34 
that public relations practitioners must have power in the organization?s dominant 
coalition, or organizational decision-making body, in order to best influence the 
organization?s worldview of public relations, and to help set goals and identify 
strategic publics.  
Recent studies (Berger, 2005; Berger, 2007; Berger & Reber, 2006) focus 
further on power/influence in public relations; in particular, Berger and Reber (2006) 
highlight that public relations professionals, academics, and graduate students named 
power, or ?gaining a seat at the decision-making table? either the first or second most 
important issue in public relations (p. 5). However, Berger (2007) noted that public 
relations practitioner involvement in or with the dominant coalition does not 
necessarily guarantee influence, and could even risk ?co-optation of professional 
voice and values? (Holtzhausen, 2000; Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002). Addressing this 
power imbalance, Berger and Reber (2006), along with others (i.e., Holtzhausen, 
2000, 2007; Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002; Lauzen, 1992), argued that public relations 
practitioners can and should hold organizational power, regardless of empowerment 
level, access to the dominant coalition, or seats at the organizational decision-making 
table. Indeed, these scholars suggested that in order to give voice to less powerful 
publics (Karlberg, 1996), public relations practitioners have a responsibility to take 
opportunities to resist usual power structures through a variety of means including 
dissensus and activism (Holtzhausen, 2007; Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002) as well as 
through alpha approaches (?commonly used influence tactics that are generally 
sanctioned or accepted in professional and organizational practice,? Berger & Reber, 
2006, p. 107) and more controversial omega tactics (that ?reflect organizational 
 35 
politics that ?play outside the rules? and represent forms of illegitimate authority,? 
Berger & Reber, 2006, p. 152). Through resistance strategies, public relations 
practitioners can gain power and influence for accomplishing organizational goals 
(Hay & Hartel, 2000) or to prompt or force organizational changes necessary to 
address shortcomings (Mintzberg, 1983). Berger (2005, 2007) also notes that power 
may exist in multiple coalitions throughout an organization; thus not only public 
relations practitioners working through resistance strategies but also other employees 
or employee groups may rise as leaders to influence organizational decisions. 
Although resistance strategies hold promise both for future public relations 
research as well as increased power and influence for practitioners, organizational 
decisions continue to emerge largely through dominant coalition discussions and 
actions. Plowman?s (1998) study on conflict in power for public relations found that 
?top management has a major effect on the practice of public relations,? and that the 
dominant coalition?s preferences dictate the organization?s public relations worldview 
(p. 257-258). In addition, O?Neil (2003) found connections between perceived value 
of public relations and the relationships between practitioners and the dominant 
coalition. The study also yielded positive associations between practitioners? 
reporting relationships with the dominant coalition and organizational influence; this 
contrasts with only weak associations between reporting relationships and 
organizational influence in excellence study follow-ups (Dozier et al., 1995). 
Likewise, Berger (2007) argued that public relations practitioners with dominant 
coalition membership or access have ?important advantages,? including granted, 
formal authority; ?regular access to key decision makers and to more strategic 
 36 
information for use?; and ?opportunities to speak, advocate, debate, resist, and 
actively participate in strategic decision making? (p. 224). Clearly, these studies show 
that access to or membership in the dominant coalition is crucial for practitioners to 
hold power and influence within their organizations. Yet according to Berger (2007), 
the majority of public relations professionals today still find themselves outside of 
this inner decision-making circle. These considerations prompt research into better 
understanding leadership types and how they influence excellence (or lack thereof) in 
public relations practices, both internal and external. 
Although J. E. Grunig and associates (1992) have posited that authoritarian 
leadership is not conducive to excellent public relations, relatively little research 
within the public relations body of knowledge has further explored which types of 
leadership styles most effectively contribute to an organization?s public relations 
excellence. One study (Aldoory & Toth, 2004) looked at practitioner perceptions of 
public relations leadership styles?particularly with regard to gender, finding strong 
preference for transformational style combined with employment of situational (a 
combination of transformational and transactional) style in more turbulent times. The 
study also found no style preference difference between male and female respondents, 
but did find that female public relations leaders placed higher value on building 
rapport and personal connections with employees, sharing decision-making power, 
and good communication and listening, among other things (p. 175). In addition, the 
authors argued that ?due to the connections between transformational leadership and 
feminine traits, women may be more suited to be public relations leaders? (p. 179). 
Studies I conducted (McCown, 2005a, 2006) explored connections between internal 
 37 
public relations practices and leadership. I found strong connections between 
transformational leadership style and internal public relations excellence.  
Leadership Styles 
Transformational/charismatic leadership style 
According to Bass (1985, 1990a), early leadership research focused mostly on 
the differences between autocratic and democratic approaches, decision-making with 
regard to participation or direction, the task- or relationship-focus of leading people, 
and whether leadership included initiation or consideration. Simultaneously, scholars 
explored how to promote change in people as individuals, in groups, and in the 
context of organizations, calling for ?democratic, participative, relationship-oriented, 
considerate leadership? (Bass, 1985, p. 3).  
One emerging leadership style theory explored the transformational leader 
who, according to Burns (1978), recognizes that followers (or employees) have needs 
that go beyond transactional exchanges. Bass (1985) posited that in contemporary 
affluent societies, transformational leaders should find significant opportunities for 
arousing higher level needs (Maslow, 1954), since most lower level needs would be 
highly satisfied. But he noted that even in societies where existence needs are highly 
unsatisfied (third world countries, for example), some leaders, such as Mahatma 
Gandhi, have still been able to arouse higher-level needs in their followers, even at 
the expense of sacrificing basic need satisfaction. Bass argued that such leaders, 
transformational in their way of leading, ?can move those influenced to transcend 
their own self-interest for the good of the group, organization, or country? (p. 15).  
 38 
Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) took fundamental differences in their 
approaches to understanding transformational leadership. Although Burns saw 
Maslow?s (1954) hierarchy of needs as critical to the process of transformation, Bass 
argued that transformation may occur in shifting upward or downward, as in a leader 
influencing a group of teens to move from law-abiding behavior to criminal behavior 
in order to more fully ?satisfy? lower level needs. With regard to work settings, 
however, Burns and Bass suggested that transformational leaders are usually more 
concerned with motivating workers toward higher-level needs, enabling workers to 
take more initiative and responsibility, potentially converting them into leaders. 
Following up on this idea, Bandura?s (1982) research argued for workers to become 
self-regulating under transformational leadership, which provided the high 
performance standards and inspiration required to reach goals. Ultimately, 
?transformational leadership is closer to the prototype of leadership that people have 
in mind when they describe their ideal leader and is more likely to provide a role 
model with which subordinates want to identify? (Bass, 1990a). In addition, Bass 
(1990b) argued that transactional leaders can and should be trained to become more 
transformational in order to better empower employees and reap the performance 
benefits associated with transformational leadership (p. 25). 
Toward the end of the 20th century, a host of scholars?heavily influenced by 
Weber?s (1947) leadership research?extended transformational theories into the 
realm of charisma, Greek for ?divinely inspired gift.? For Weber, the term describes 
leader influence based on follower perceptions of extraordinary leader qualities (often 
presented during a change or a crisis) rather than on formal or positional authority.  
 39 
In recent leadership research, some scholars used the terms charismatic and 
transformational interchangeably (Beyer, 1999a, 1999b; Conger, 1989; Conger & 
Kanungo, 1987, 1998; House, 1977; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Conger (1989) 
and Conger and Kanungo (1998) refined follower-attribution theories, suggesting that 
charismatic leadership is attributed to the leader by the follower(s), as determined by 
leader behavior and skill as well as the situation in which he or she is leading. Later, 
Yukl (2002) summarized leader behaviors that most often evoke follower attribution 
of leader charisma, though not all had to be present to the same degree nor are they 
equally important in every situation. These include leaders who advocate a vision that 
transcends the status quo but that is not seen as too ?radical? by the followers; 
unconventional behavior in order to accomplish the vision; willingness to self-
sacrifice or risk personally for the vision; confidence in the vision; and those who use 
persuasive or ?visioning? appeals rather than authority or participative decision-
making processes.  
Conger (1989) further extended the theory to suggest that followers? degree of 
commitment to a charismatic leader?s vision is tied to personal identification, where 
followers idolize the leader due to perceived extraordinary characteristics. The degree 
of the idolization also depended, Conger said, on the extent to which followers 
internalize the leader?s vision, particularly his or her values and beliefs. 
Situation or contingency theory also plays a role in charismatic and 
transformational leadership. In an extensive literature review, Yukl and Howell 
(1999) proposed that although charismatic leadership may be applied in the majority 
of organizational situations, it might be more effective in some situations than others. 
 40 
In particular, they argued that it is more likely to be present/successful in 
environmental circumstances such as crises, instability, high demand, and opportunity 
for change; organic organizational structures; and adaptive organizational cultures. 
These conditions are not necessary for effective charismatic leadership, but they 
potentially increase the opportunity for it. In contrast, Conger and Kanungo (1998) 
suggested that charismatic leadership may be employed in non-crisis situations. By 
stirring up dissatisfaction with the status quo and offering a vision with 
unconventional solutions to a more satisfying future, charismatic leaders may actually 
evoke conflict and gain support for their vision through influencing followers. 
Summarizing earlier research (House, 1977; Shamir et al., 1993), Yukl (2002) 
suggested exploring relationships between leaders and followers to further understand 
follower attribution and imitation of charismatic leadership. Yukl suggested nine 
behaviors that explain the ways in which a charismatic leader sways follower 
attitudes and behaviors: 
(1) articulating an appealing vision, (2) using strong, expressive forms  
of communication when articulating the vision, (3) taking personal risks  
and making self-sacrifices to attain the vision, (4) communicating high 
expectations,(5) expressing confidence in followers, (6) role modeling  
of behaviors consistent with the vision, (7) managing follower impressions  
of the leader, (8) building identification with the group or organization,  
and (9) empowering followers. (p. 244)  
In addition, charismatic leaders influence their followers by promoting social 
identification (employing slogans, symbols, rituals, ceremonies, or storytelling), 
 41 
internalization, augmentation of individual and collective self-efficacy (followers? 
belief in their own and their groups? or teams? ability to achieve organizational goals 
and objectives), and celebrating accomplishment of organizational objectives (Yukl, 
2002); these encourage employees to develop organizational loyalty and pride, 
making meaning of their work through contributions to the organization?s greater 
goals (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In personal identification theory (Conger, 1989; 
Yukl, 2002), follower perceptions of extraordinary characteristics produce leader 
idolization proportional to followers? internalization of leader vision, values, and 
beliefs; previously shared vision and values, and leader linkage of vision and values 
with tasks to achieve organizational goals increases internalization.  
 Employing individualized consideration (IC) strategies, transformational 
leaders exhibit friendly and close behavior, treat followers as equals, and offer 
support/encouragement according to followers? individual needs (Bass, 1985). 
Musser (1997) summarized leadership concepts as post-heroic (Huey, 1994), credible 
(Kouzes & Posner, 1993), stewardship (Block, 1993), principle-centered (Covey, 
1992), and compassionate and servant (DePree, 1989; Greenleaf, 1977). Leaders 
using IC draw from ethical value systems that include other-oriented end goals and 
high need sensitivity (Musser & Orke, 1992) to ?produce a humane, compassionate 
view of followers? and freedom from hierarchical control leading to follower 
empowerment (Musser, 1997, p. 3). Musser also found a causal relationship between 
a leader?s religious conversion and follower perception of that leader?s individualized 
consideration behavior. Numerous scholars have further tested aspects of 
transformational leadership in the organizational context. Findings included increased 
 42 
effectiveness and job satisfaction among subordinates in the presence of 
transformational leadership (Seltzer & Bass, 1990); positive links between 
transformational leadership, organizational commitment and job satisfaction 
(Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003; Walumbwa et al., 2004); a connection between 
transformational leadership and effective organizational goal dissemination (Berson 
& Avolio, 2004); a positive relationship between employee work group self-efficacy 
and cohesiveness (brought about by transformational leadership) and high work 
performance (Pillai & Williams, 2004); connections between transformational 
leadership and employee empowerment and dependency (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 
2003); stronger transformational leader-follower relationships in situations perceiving 
high-quality leader-member exchanges (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006); and refinements 
in understanding transformational leadership?s individualized consideration by 
distinguishing between the effects of developmental leadership (encouraging 
employee growth and development) and supportive leadership (expressing concern 
for and taking account of followers?needs and preferences in decision-making), with 
developmental leadership resulting in stronger correlations with job satisfaction, 
career certainly, affective organizational commitment, and self-efficacy in role-
breadth (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). 
Principle-centered leadership style 
Although limited literature exists exploring the principle-centered leadership 
style (Covey, 1992), the tenets of this style align closely with this dissertation study?s 
leadership characteristics, thus requiring inclusion in the literature review. In the 
latter decades of the 20th century, a number of scholars and business gurus gave 
 43 
heightened attention to the importance of ethics, character, and principles in 
organizational leadership. Covey (1992) identified eight characteristics of ?principle-
centered leaders?:  continual learners, service oriented (seeing life as a ?mission?), 
radiators of positive energy, believers in the potential and good in other people, 
balancers of all aspects of life (including the ability to allow themselves and others to 
make mistakes and the need for self-honesty), adventurers (particularly with regard to 
?rediscovering? people with each new interaction), synergistic (having the ability to 
bring together others for improvement), and exercisers of self-renewal (physical, 
mental, emotional, and spiritual (pp. 33-39). Covey saw employee empowerment and 
trust as critical for creating principle-centered workplaces, suggesting that these keys 
enable employees to meet expectations ?without being reminded? because leaders 
have ?built an emotional bank account with them? (p. 155).  
Servant-leadership style 
One leader type ?serves? its subordinates. First attributed in scholarship to 
Greenleaf (1998, original essay in 1970), servant-leadership may be defined as 
follows:   
The servant-leader is a servant first. . . . Becoming a servant leader begins 
with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.  Then conscious 
choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one 
who is a leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power 
drive or to acquire material possessions. . . . The difference manifests itself in 
the care taken by the servant first to make sure that other people?s highest 
priority needs are being served.? (pp. 18-19) 
 44 
Servant leadership assumes that societal change will only emerge through 
?producing? enough people who are equipped to make that change, and that requires 
serving others (p. 19-20). In the corporate world, Greenleaf (1977, 1978) posited that 
the primary purpose of a business should be to create a positive impact on its 
employees and the greater community; servant-leadership brings together service and 
meaning in the workplace.  
Building on Greenleaf, a number of scholars and business leaders have 
researched servant leadership. DePree (1989) determined that servant-leaders often 
employ participative management, creating ?covenantal relationships? with 
employees to meet their needs for finding meaning in work; this elevates the goal of 
?redemption? above the goal of profit in the workplace (DePree in Lee & Zemke, 
1995, pp. 101-102). DePree (1992) also suggested 12 keys to successful servant-
leadership: integrity, vulnerability, discernment, awareness of the human spirit, 
courage in relationships, sense of humor, intellectual energy and curiosity, respect for 
future/regard for present/understanding of past, predictability, breadth, comfort with 
ambiguity, and presence. 
As noted by Lee and Zemke (1995), Block (1993) further argued for servant-
leadership as stewardship, defined by accountability through service rather than 
control or compliance. In addition, Spears (1998) summarized servant leadership 
traits espoused by Greenleaf and others as follows: listening; empathy; healing 
(taking opportunity to help make whole those with whom they come in contact); 
persuasion through convincing and consensus rather than coercion; awareness of self, 
others, and environment; conceptualization (dreaming dreams); foresight 
 45 
(understanding past/present/future); stewardship (commitment to serving needs of 
others first); commitment to the growth of people; and building community among 
employees (pp. 4-7).  
Business leaders such as the Toro company?s Melrose (1995) and Tom?s of 
Maine?s Chappell (1993) wrote extensively about applying servant-leadership 
principles in their organizations. Melrose promoted creating organizational culture 
that facilitates employees reaching their potential; a trusting environment (that leads 
to risk-taking, innovation, and creativity); individual and team empowerment for 
better problem-solving; increased self-worth resulting in greater productivity; and 
valuing employees, customers, and performance to lead to quality, productivity, and 
profits. Melrose argued for people values?trust and respect for one another, 
teamwork and win-win partnerships, giving power away, coaching and serving, 
overtly recognizing small successes and good tries, and open clear communication?
based on the guiding principle of genuinely valuing others out of respect and care for 
their well-being (p. 38-39). Melrose also proposed that this type of corporate culture 
allows for leader mistakes because they have the support of their employees; in fact, 
because they ?enhance your humanness,? leader imperfections may actually foster 
greater employee risk-taking, innovation, and trust (p. 130). Finally, Melrose noted 
the New Testament example of Jesus as the ideal servant-leader, quoting, ?Whoever 
wants to be great among you must be your servant,? cited in Matthew 20:26 (p. 123). 
Similarly, Chappell suggested that businesses must have a ?soul? brought about by 
servant-leadership (p. ix). He argued for humility and accountability as critical 
leadership traits, and highlighted the importance of allowing beliefs to drive creative 
 46 
business strategy, inspiring employees to embody the corporate mission in their 
professional and personal lives, creating a corporate community, and promoting 
creativity and autonomy. Chappell touted trust relationships as fostering autonomy to 
bring both freedom and responsibility to help others. 
Recently, Fry (2003) offered a spiritual leadership model similar to that of 
servant-leadership. The model incorporates vision, hope/faith, and altruistic love, 
theories of workplace spirituality, and spiritual survival. Spiritual leadership creates 
vision and value congruence across the strategic, empowered team, and individual 
levels, and, ultimately, fosters higher levels of organizational commitment and 
productivity.   
Authentic leadership 
Most recently, leadership scholars have begun focusing their attention on 
understanding the shared root construct of these previously reviewed leadership styles 
(transformational, charismatic, principled, and servant) (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). 
This research, brought about in part to better understand developing leadership in a 
business world full of increased uncertainty (due to ethical crises, recent heightened 
terrorism, and natural disasters), is summarized by George (2003), former head of 
Medtronic: ?We need leaders who lead with purpose, values, and integrity; leaders 
who build enduring organizations, motivate their employees to provide superior 
customer service, and create long-term value for shareholders? (p. 9). As a result, a 
theory of authentic leadership development, or ALD (Luthans & Avolio, 2003), has 
emerged, holding promise both for expanding leadership theory as well as for 
providing a potential framework for the current study. 
 47 
 The basis of authentic leadership??authenticity??finds its roots in Greek 
philosophy, and centers on the adage, ?To thine own self be true? (as noted in Avolio 
& Gardner, 2005; see Erickson, 1995, and Harter, 2002, for fuller reviews of 
authenticity in philosophy and psychology). Used in this emerging body of leadership 
literature, authenticity is understood as ?owning one?s personal experiences, be they 
thoughts, emotions, needs, wants, preferences, or beliefs, processes captured by the 
injunction to ?know oneself,?? and ?implies that one acts in accord with the true self, 
expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings? 
(Harter, 2002, p. 382). Building on Goffman (1963), Avolio and Gardner (2005) 
suggested that this sense of authentic self develops through social exchanges; they 
noted that authenticity in social exchanges occurs in degrees or levels as individuals 
maintain or violate their commitments to others, as discussed by Erikson (1995). 
Scholars have defined authentic leadership in similar ways, with some 
important distinctions. Terry (1993, pp. 223-229) argued that authentic leaders are 
those who ?take authentic action? and who meet seven criteria: correspondence 
(between ideas and behaviors), consistency (between ?talk? and ?walk?), coherence 
(connecting one consistent action to another), concealment (or actually, recognizing 
and addressing potential concealment of ambiguities and contradictions of actions), 
conveyance (of the action?s mission), comprehensiveness (which allows for added 
insights, ?embraces differences,? and ?opens dialogues?), and convergence (which 
connects individuals into a transcendent, mutual understanding). More recent research 
indicated that authentic leaders may be ?those who are deeply aware of how they 
think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others? 
 48 
values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which 
they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral 
character? (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa, 2004, p. 4, as cited in Avolio, Gardner et 
al., 2004). Authentic leadership may also be ?a process that draws from both positive 
psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results 
in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of 
leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development? (Luthans & Avolio, 2003, 
p. 243). Moreover, Luthans and Avolio suggested that ?the authentic leader is 
confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives 
priority to developing associates to be leaders. The authentic leader is true to 
him/herself and the exhibited behavior positively transforms or develops associates 
into leaders themselves? (2003, p. 243). 
Other scholars have expressed concern with these definitions? 
multidimensionality (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005), noting that Luthans 
and Avolio?s (2003) intentional breadth makes the construct difficult to measure. 
Shamir and Eilam (2005) addressed the construct?s problematic breadth by narrowing 
their definition of authentic leadership to four defining characteristics:  
1.  ?Authentic leaders do not fake their leadership.? 
2. ?Authentic leaders do not take on a leadership role or engage in leadership 
activities for status, honor or other personal rewards.? 
3. ?Authentic leaders are originals, not copies,? coming to their convictions?
though they may be shared with others?through their own experiential 
process and internalization. 
 49 
4. ?Authentic leaders are leaders whose actions are based on their values and 
convictions. What they say is consistent with what they believe, and their 
actions are consistent with both their talk and their beliefs? (pp. 396-397). 
 Shamir and Eilam (2005) added that authentic leaders have the following 
attributes:  the leadership role as central to their self-concept, a high level of self-
resolution or self-concept clarity; self-concordant (?owned?) goals; and self-
expressive behavior (pp. 398-399). Avolio and Gardner (2005) noted that Shamir and 
Eilam?s (2005) characteristics do not focus on leadership style or ?content of the 
leader?s values or convictions? (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 321), which differs from 
the view that authentic leaders? values and convictions grow out of a positive moral 
perspective (Luthans & Avolio, 2003; May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003). 
Likewise, Michie and Gooty (2005) argued that ?self-transcendent values and 
positive other-directed emotions are important determinants of authentic leadership? 
(p. 441).   
Several scholars (Gardner et al., 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005) proposed that 
authentic leaders facilitate development of authentic followership, or ?followers who 
follow the leader for authentic reasons. . . because they share the leader?s beliefs, 
values and convictions, the leader?s concerns, and the leader?s definition of the 
situation? (Shamir & Eilam, 2005, p. 401). Authentic followers also have a realistic 
perspective of the leader, without ?illusions or delusions? or ?blind? following; 
rather, they ?authenticate? the leader based on consistency between leader behaviors 
and held beliefs, values, and convictions (Shamir & Eilam, 2005, p. 401). Likewise, 
Gardner et al. (2005) noted authentic followership reflects authentic leader 
 50 
development, displaying many of the same antecedents as previously described for 
authentic leaders. In particular, relationships with an authentic leader may serve as a 
?trigger event? for the follower?s authentic development, leading toward increased 
self-awareness (p. 360). In addition, Gardner et al. posited that for those followers 
with high self-concept clarity, congruence between followers? values and leaders? 
values increased ?identification with and emulation of? the leader (p. 360). Followers 
with low self-concept clarity may be attracted to authentic leaders and choose to 
adopt leader values as their own; however, Gardner et al. argued that authentic 
leaders? positive modeling fosters those followers? self-concept clarification, resulting 
in eventual internalization of the organization?s core values and more fully developed 
follower authenticity (p. 360). Ultimately, authentic leadership?through 
demonstrating the self-awareness development process and through encouraging 
follower personal growth?leads to greater follower authenticity and increased 
leader-follower intimacy and trust, increased follower (employee) engagement, and 
?workplace wellbeing? that contributes to greater workplace performance (p. 360-
367).  
Similarly, Gardner and Schermerhorn (2004) noted the powerful combination 
of authentic leaders? self-awareness, self-regulation, positive psychological 
capabilities (confidence, hope, optimism, resilience), and commitment to 
growth/development (in themselves and followers). The authors cited Joanne 
DeLavan Reichardt, Randstad North America?s vice president of corporate 
communications and public affairs, who stated that authentic leadership offer a two-
 51 
fold return on investment: visible management commitment to open, honest 
communication and employee partnership to influence business results. 
Avolio and Gardner (2005) compared ALD theory with transformational, 
charismatic, servant, and spiritual leadership theories. First, a leader may be authentic 
but not transformational; however, by definition according to Bass (1985) and Burns 
(1978), a transformational leader must be authentic. ?Authentic leaders are anchored 
by their own deep sense of self; they know where they stand on important issues, 
values, and beliefs? (p. 329). Second, despite their potential for positive impact 
through role modeling, authentic leaders may not intend to actively develop their 
followers into leaders, a defining characteristic of transformational leadership (Avolio 
& Gardner, 2005). Third, authentic leaders recognize their own weaknesses and work 
to address them through ?capable followers? and ?positive organizational context? (p. 
330). Comparing authentic and charismatic leadership, Avolio and Gardner (2005) 
noted charismatic leaders influence follower self-awareness of values/moral 
perspectives through rhetoric. In contrast, authentic leaders ?energize followers by 
creating meaning and positively socially constructing reality for themselves and 
followers? (p. 330). Finally, Avolio and Gardner (2005) compared authentic 
leadership with servant and spiritual leadership, suggesting that both recognize the 
importance of leader self-awareness and self-regulation as well as emphasis on leader 
awareness, empathy, conceptualization, vision, and focus on integrity, trust, courage, 
hope and perseverance or resilience. However, Avolio and Gardner (2005) argued 
that servant and spiritual leadership theories lack either empirical support or testing in 
the organizational context, whereas authentic leadership theories draw from related 
 52 
literature in clinical, positive, and social psychology, and are undergoing empirical 
testing within organizational contexts. 
Organizational Culture 
Hundreds of scholars?from anthropologists to management researchers?
have developed definitions for culture (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952). In particular, 
Hofstede (1980) broadly defined culture as ?the collective mental programming of the 
mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another. . . . Culture 
is to human collectivity what personality is to an individual? (p. 21). However, this 
dissertation study focuses in on a specific aspect of culture, that of culture within an 
organization.  
Theories of organizational culture 
Organizational culture may be likened to organizational ?personality,? or 
those behaviors and norms that distinguish one organization from another. Building 
on previous scholars, Schein (1985) developed a formal definition of organizational 
culture, which included regularly observed behavioral patterns (Goffman, 1959, 1967; 
Van Maanen, 1979), norms (Homans, 1950), overarching values espoused by the 
organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982); the philosophies that guide employee and 
customer policies (Ouchi, 1981; Pascale & Athos, 1981); and the feeling or climate of 
the organization as manifested through its physical facilities and human interactions 
(Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968). In essence, Schein suggested that organizational culture is a 
set of assumptions developed through group consensus and shared experiences, and 
?valid? enough to teach new group members (p. 9). Key elements include consensual 
mission statement and shared purposes or ?reasons to be??both economic and 
 53 
esoteric (p. 53). Schein also contended that religion often provides a context for 
organizational members to understand difficult or ??unexplainable? situations and 
?provides guidelines for what to do in ambiguous, uncertain, and threatening 
situations?? (p. 79).  In short, organizational culture allows members to work together 
comfortably and focus on their jobs.   
If internal issues are not settled, if people are preoccupied with their position 
and identity, if they are insecure, if they do not know the rules of the game 
and therefore cannot predict or understand what is going on, they cannot 
concentrate on the important survival issues that may face the organization. 
(Schein, 1985, p. 83)  
Without well-identified organizational culture, Schein posited, members?and, 
ultimately, the organization?would be less effective. In addition, he purported that 
organizational cultures imply long-range stability, emphasize shared concepts, and 
suggest agreement among all?or at least most?employees (p. 247).  
Relatedly, Denison (1990) proposed four key ideas germane to organizational 
culture that integrate to make organizations effective: involvement (employee self-
management and participation create ownership and responsibility), consistency 
(shared belief and values systems have positive impact on employee consensus and 
accomplishments), adaptability (organizations are able to perceive and respond to 
both internal and external environments), and mission (shared definition of the 
function and purpose of an organization and its members). According to Denison, 
organizational cultures that integrate and balance these four characteristics provide 
organizations with purpose, meaning, and clear direction and goals (p. 15). 
 54 
In a similar fashion, Kotter and Heskett (1992) defined organizational culture 
as a combination of shared values and group behaviors. Their research suggested that 
organizational culture usually begins to emerge as top management shares a vision or 
philosophy for the organization. As employees begin adapting their behavior 
according to this philosophy, success results and an identifiable organizational culture 
develops. In several studies, Kotter and Heskett found that corporate culture can have 
significant impact on a firm?s long-term economic performance, concluding that this 
influence is likely to increase in the future. In addition, despite their resistance to 
change (cultures seem to become entities in themselves), corporate cultures can be 
altered to enhance performance (pp. 10-12). Other findings include association of 
?strong cultures? with excellent performance, the importance of goal alignment 
among organizational members, the positive motivational effect of strong cultures on 
employees, and the idea that strong cultures ?provide needed structure and controls 
without having to rely on a stifling, formal bureaucracy that can dampen motivation 
and innovation? (pp. 15-16). 
Workplace spirituality 
In recent years, scholars have begun examining the phenomenon of workplace 
spirituality as part of organizational culture. This has proven somewhat challenging 
because, as McCormick (1994) pointed out, spirituality itself is difficult to understand 
and pinpoint due to numerous definitions and spiritual/religious traditions. He sought 
to identify themes of spiritual workplaces without regard for specific spiritual 
traditions, suggesting these commonalities: compassion, right livelihood (the 
Buddhist concept of choosing work that does not cause people or animals to suffer); 
 55 
selfless service (drawn from Christianity and Hinduism); work as meditative; and 
pluralism, which, as McCormick noted, becomes problematic when ?creating a 
community of like-minded spiritual colleagues at work can endanger an employee?s 
right to religious freedom? (p. 7).   
Attempting to define workplace spirituality, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003) 
offered the following: ?A framework of organizational values evidenced in the 
culture that promotes employees? experience of transcendence through the work 
process, facilitating their sense of being connected in a way that provides feelings of 
compassion and joy? (p. 13). They especially noted that employees in spiritual 
workplaces often exhibit a sense of vocational calling and a need for social 
connection or membership. 
Because this dissertation study focused on an organization whose founder/top 
leader?s religious tradition stems from evangelical Christianity, and because the 
foundational values of the chosen organization?s mission and operation also draw 
from the same religious tradition, several relevant studies require review. Conley and 
Wagner-Marsh (1998) proposed that spirituality and ethics in the workplace 
complement each other; as a result, the current ?workplace spirituality movement? 
could prove synergistic when combined with concern for ethical performance in the 
workplace (p. 255). They also suggested that leaders who encourage a more 
widespread commitment to the organizational philosophy?s spiritual foundations 
could enhance acceptance and practice of ethical behavioral codes. This, in turn, 
might lead employees beyond mere conformity to ethical codes and into 
internalization (p. 257). Further, these scholars posited what they call the ?fourth 
 56 
wave? theory of the spiritually-based firm. Building upon Toffler?s (1980) idea of the 
technological firm as an organizational ?third wave,? they proposed six key concepts 
critical for achieving a spiritually based organizational culture (the ?fourth wave?): 
?honesty with self [in the organizational leader], articulation of the corporation?s 
spiritually-based philosophy, mutual trust and honesty with others, commitment to 
quality and service, commitment to employees, and selection of personnel to match 
the corporation?s spiritually-based philosophy? (Wagner-Marsh & Conley, 1999, p. 
292). 
Studying how organizations may most effectively maintain workplace 
spirituality, Konz and Ryan (1999) suggested that defining spirituality in the 
organization?s written mission statement?as the enunciation of organizational 
culture?is critical to help potential employees determine if personal spirituality fits 
with an organization?s spirituality. This close meshing, the scholars posited, plays a 
critical role in avoiding employee confusion and frustration. 
Finally, in a review of existing workplace spirituality scholarship, Garcia-
Zamor (2003) cited Harvard Business School and Vanderbilt University Business 
School studies that found organizations with strong corporate cultures?spirited 
workplaces?correlated positively with profitability; as employees attempted to 
connect their personal moral values stemming from their religious and cultural values 
with workplace ethics, their on-the-job performance increased. The researcher 
suggested that organizational leaders must realize the need to focus on individuals 
and establish themselves as ?organizations with a higher sense of business purpose? 
(p. 361). 
 57 
Leadership in organizational culture 
Organizational leaders and corporate culture work interrelatedly. Schein 
(1985) offered several suggestions for the role of leaders in establishing and 
maintaining organizational culture. First, he posited that because the organization was 
a founder?s original idea, the founder exerts profound influence on the culture and 
how to make it work. Key traits in leader influence on organizational culture include 
leader self-confidence and determination; strong assumptions about the nature of the 
world; the role the organization plays in the world, the link between human nature 
and relationships; how to determine ?truth?; and how to manage time and space (p. 
210). Quoting Bennis (1983), Schein cited the need for organizational leaders to 
?articulate a vision? for the group in order to ?embed? organizational culture in 
members (p. 223). Specific facets include what leaders pay attention to, measure, and 
control; their reactions to critical events and crises; deliberate role modeling, 
teaching, and coaching; setting criteria for rewards and status elevation; and 
recruitment, hiring, promotion, retirement, and ?excommunication? criteria (pp. 224-
225). Of special relevance to this dissertation study, leaders most effective in 
influencing organizational culture understand that their own visible behavior 
communicates powerfully to employees?especially new hires?regarding cultural 
philosophies, assumptions, and values (Schein, 1985, p. 232). Likewise, Kotter and 
Heskett (1992) posited that organizational leaders must communicate corporate 
visions through ?words and deeds? to grow shared values and ensure that firm 
behavior and practice mesh with corporate culture (p. 106).  
 
 58 
Research Questions 
 This study?s purpose was to explore the influence of leadership on internal 
public relations and leader-employee relationship building and its outcomes within 
the context of a spiritually-based workplace. To explore the confluences of these 
conceptualizations, I posed the following research questions: 
RQ1: What leadership style is exhibited in the organization?s top leader (as self-
ascribed and as ascribed by organizational employees)?   
 Through this research question, I identified the particular leadership style(s) of 
the organization?s top leader as ascribed by both the leader and his followers. 
Through pre-study discussions with a management scholar acquaintance who knows 
and has actually conducted limited research (unpublished) with this organization?s 
leader, I learned that the leader portrays characteristics usually identified with the 
following leadership styles:  transformational (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978); principle-
centered (Covey, 1992); spiritual (Greenleaf, 1977, 1978); and authentic (Luthans & 
Avolio, 1993). My research examined these characteristics to determine leadership 
style, key to achieving this dissertation?s subsequent goals. 
RQ2: How does that particular leadership style influence the organization?s 
workplace culture? 
With this research question, I explored the interplay between a particular 
leadership style and organizational culture (Schein, 1985). Because the founder/leader 
of the organization I studied has already publicly identified himself as an evangelical 
Christian and has described his organizational philosophy as rooted in this particular 
religious tradition, it was important to understand the resulting workplace culture and 
 59 
test application of theories regarding the spiritually based firm (Wagner-Marsh & 
Conley, 1999). Although the excellence theory (Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. Grunig, 
1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002) has proposed that organic workplace culture is most 
conducive to fostering excellent public relations, no research to date has explored the 
influence of spirituality in the workplace on public relations excellence.  
RQ3: How does that leadership style influence internal public relations (employee 
communication) practices?  
This research question builds on the excellence theory?s propositions that 
certain types of leadership style thwart excellent public relations, while others 
promote excellence (Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 
2002). Although excellence theory research has explained that authoritarian 
leadership style is not conducive to two-way symmetrical communication and related 
outcomes (i.e., participative decision-making, organic culture), it has not specifically 
identified leadership styles that do promote internal public relations excellence. This 
question explored the influence of the leadership styles exhibited by the 
organization?s top leader on open, two-way employee communication.  
RQ4: How does the confluence of this particular leadership style, the organization?s 
internal public relations, and workplace culture facilitate leader-employee 
relationship building? What are the resulting outcomes of leader-employee 
relationship building? 
As public relations scholarship has experienced a sea change toward a 
relationship-building model (Heath, 2001; Ledingham, 2003), little research 
(exceptions include McCown, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007) has been conducted to date 
 60 
regarding how leadership style and internal public relations practices help facilitate 
leader-employee relationship building. In particular, this question explored 
relationship antecedents such as trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, and 
commitment (J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). It also 
examined employee empowerment and employee leadership emergence within the 
organization (i.e., Berger, 2005, 2007). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 61 
Chapter Three ? Method 
In order to address the research questions posed, I conducted a qualitative case 
study. This chapter reviews the rationale for selecting this particular methodology for 
this dissertation, highlighting advantages and limitations as well as the procedures I 
followed in conducting data collection and analysis. I begin by discussing qualitative 
methodology and the case study approach. I then detail the triangulation of data 
collection methods I used?long interviews, participant observation, and document 
analysis?as well as organization choice and access, recruitment and sampling, and 
the interview protocol. After describing data management and analysis strategies 
used, I end this chapter by discussing the criteria I used for evaluating the study?s 
validity as well as how I addressed ethical concerns. 
Qualitative Methodology 
 In qualitative methodology, the scholar asks exploratory questions about 
processes, situations, changes, and meaning; in fact, ?qualitative design is guided by 
acts of questioning and dialogue? (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). This methodology is best 
applied in research settings characterized by constant change with blurred boundaries 
(Potter, 1996) Similarly, qualitative research is best suited to topics requiring in-depth 
understanding, detailed examples, and insights that help explain ?how? and ?why??
in short, whenever the scholar desires to explore a research problem?s broader 
implications and place it in historical, political, or social contexts (Brannen, 1992; H. 
J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995).  
 Various scholars have described hallmarks of qualitative research, including 
induction (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002); ?in vivo? settings (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Miles 
 62 
& Huberman, 1994); thick description (Geertz, 1973; Strauss & Corbin,1990); and 
rich, vivid, contextualized accounts with a ?ring of truth? (Miles & Huberman, 1994, 
p. 10) described in ?loving detail? (Lofland, 1971, p. 13). Qualitative research also 
explores a situation?s ?verstehen,? emphasizing ordinary life as it has meaning to the 
people involved (Potter, 1996, p. 21). 
Qualitative research recognizes the researcher as research instrument 
(Brannen, 1992; McCracken, 1988; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Potter, 1996); 
practicing reflexivity or self reflection helps the researcher recognize subjectivity and 
attempt to minimize potential biases (McCracken, 1988; Miles & Huberman, 1994; 
H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995; Wolcott, 1994). In addition, qualitative researchers 
often allow participants partial control in the research process, attempting to 
understand the meanings their experiences bring to them (Denzin & Lincoln, 2002; 
Kvale, 1995; H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995), treating them as ?conversation 
partners? (H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995), and giving them voice by presenting their 
words as data (Fine, Weis, Weseen, & Wong, 2000; Wolcott, 1994). In writing up 
their findings, qualitative researchers balance their own voices with their participants? 
multiple, diverse voices (Fine et al., 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 2003; Lindlof & Taylor, 
2002; H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995), highlighting the complexities and multiple 
voices present in participants? lives, situations, and cultures (M. M. Gergen & K. J. 
Gergen, 2003). 
 According to Kvale (1995), research methods should match with topics and 
research questions. As I explored the confluences of leadership style and internal 
public relations and their potential influence on leader-employee relationship building 
 63 
and employee leadership development, I was aware that little prior research had 
tackled these interrelationships. Employing qualitative methods enabled me to glean 
more in-depth insights into the research setting?s complexities and subtleties, 
particularly from the participants? perspectives. In addition, being in the actual 
research setting for observations and conducting in-person interviews with 
participants allowed for increased understanding ?from the inside? (Miles & 
Huberman, 1994, p. 10). It also encouraged a more iterative research process, as I was 
able to follow-up with questions prompted by participant responses and carry those 
new questions into subsequent interviews; this process yielded greater richness and 
fuller comprehension of the phenomena under study. Thus, qualitative methodology, 
with its emphasis on induction and exploration, was particularly appropriate for 
answering this study?s research questions. 
Case study approach 
 According to Miles and Huberman (1994), a ?case? is a unit of analysis for 
bounded phenomena which ?always occurs in a specified social and physical setting? 
(p. 25). In addition, Yin (2003) suggested that a case study strategy is highly 
preferred ?when ?how? or ?why? questions are being posed, when the investigator has 
little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon 
within some real-life context? (p. 1); he also argued that case studies are particularly 
appropriate when the lines between the phenomenon and its context are blurred. Yin 
detailed three different purposes for conducting case studies?exploration, 
description, or explanation?and suggested that these purposes may overlap within 
individual studies. 
 64 
One criticism of the case study approach highlights its limitation to one unit, 
reducing the study?s breadth and application to other contexts (Miles & Huberman, 
1994). Yet some scholars (Wolcott, 1994; Yin, 2003) argued against that criticism. 
Specifically, Wolcott (1994) cautioned that ?more? is not necessarily better, and that 
depth, rather than scale increases, should be the focus of qualitative research. Rather 
than improving power and impact through research at multiple sites, Wolcott posited:  
Increasing the number of cases serves only to reduce proportionately the  
attention that can be given to any one of them. . . . The risk in conducting  
fieldwork at multiple sites is to forgo the opportunity to produce one well  
contextualized qualitative study in the course of producing an inadequate  
quantitative one. (p. 182) 
Yin (2003) also advocated for the legitimacy of a single case study, notably when the 
case is extreme or unique, ?typical,? revelatory, longitudinal, or may be deemed the 
critical case. 
 To ensure a case study?s quality, Yin (2003) proposed meeting several 
strategic criteria: relying on underlying related theories to guide data collection and 
analysis, demonstrating attendance to all evidence (gathered via triangulation from 
multiple evidence sources), addressing the study?s most significant aspects, and, 
perhaps most importantly, testing rival explanations. For Yin, satisfying this final 
criterion involves thinking about and collecting evidence of other influences that may 
affect data analysis and findings; other scholars also call for this accounting of 
discrepancies and complexities (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). 
 65 
A qualitative case study approach was particularly appropriate for my 
dissertation research for several reasons. First, my research revolved around ?how? 
and ?why? questions, and matched Yin?s (2003) exploratory, descriptive, and 
explanatory purposes. Second, this study was situated in a specific social and physical 
setting (Miles & Huberman, 1994), a setting which renders the boundaries of the 
phenomena and the context blurred (Yin, 2003). In addition, my research questions 
sought to understand the interplay of several contemporary phenomena (Yin, 2003). 
Finally, the lack of previous research bringing together the areas I explored suggested 
that my case could, indeed, turn out to be revelatory, and perhaps even unique or 
extreme (Yin, 2003). In fact, I believe this was the case, as subsequent chapters will 
demonstrate. 
Data Collection Methods 
 For this case study, I used a three-pronged approach to data collection: long 
interviews, participant observation, and document analysis. Each method has 
strengths and weaknesses; scholars assert that triangulating a variety of collection 
methods increases a study?s validity, ensuring greater descriptive and explanatory 
accuracy (Brannen, 1992; Kvale, 1995; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; McCracken, 1988; 
Miles & Huberman, 1994; Potter, 1996; Yin, 2003). 
Long interviews 
 According to McCracken (1988), the long interview is a ?happy? revision of 
the ethnographic approach, better protecting participant privacy and allowing for 
more manageable time requirements (p. 11). H. J. Rubin and I. S. Rubin (1995) 
viewed long interviews as a ?conversation partnership? between researcher and 
 66 
participant (pp. 10-12). Through a cooperative interview experience, researchers 
attempt to hear meaning in their participants? words; empowered participants, on the 
other hand, are given voice and actively engage in helping to shape the conversation. 
Most importantly, researchers must allow participants the freedom to describe their 
own experiences; as Lindlof and Taylor (2002) argued, ?The last thing we as 
researchers want our participants to do is to tell us their experience in terms that they 
think we want to hear? (p. 195). 
Long interviews as semi-structured, iterative conversations allow shared, 
contextual meanings to emerge naturally, yielding deep, detailed, vivid, and nuanced 
data (H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995). However, as Marshall and Rossman (1999) 
pointed out, they also pose some limitations. These include difficulty in cooperation 
between researchers and participants, possible deception on the participants? parts to 
protect themselves, researchers? inadequacies or lack of experience in listening and 
questioning, overwhelming and cumbersome amounts of data yielded, and potentially 
lower data quality. H. J. Rubin and I. S. Rubin cautioned researchers about the danger 
in making assumptions about participants? meanings, especially with terminology; 
rather, researchers should probe and clarify to gain accuracy.  Finally, researchers 
must remain keenly aware of the ?paradox of intimacy,? which Wolcott (1994) warns 
can happen when heightened trust between researcher and participant backfires and 
hinders further study (p. 195). 
 I overcame Marshall and Rossman?s (1999), H. J. Rubin and I. S. Rubin?s 
(1995) and Wolcott?s (1994) noted limitations through numerous strategies. From 
participant recruitment to post-interview follow-up, I worked hard to establish 
 67 
comfort, rapport, and mutual respect with my participants. During participant 
recruitment, I demonstrated researcher transparency by clearly explaining to each 
participant my research purpose and goals, why I was interested in the topic, what I 
hoped to accomplish through scholarship and for practical application, how the 
interview would proceed, and what duration to expect (approximately one hour). I 
accommodated participant schedules (before, during, or after work as requested) as 
well as their choice of interview settings (restaurants, coffee shops, meeting rooms, 
their homes, or their offices?wherever they felt most comfortable sharing their 
thoughts). At the start of each interview, I reviewed the interview?s purposes, 
emphasized the required IRB protocols and procedures, secured informed consent and 
permission to record the interview, and, for participants preferring to interview at 
workplace premises, secured signed consent for any increased risk. I also highlighted 
steps I would take to ensure confidentiality and data security: using pseudonyms for 
both the participant and the organization in my transcripts and any public research 
presentations; storing consent forms, transcripts and tapes in a locked file drawer 
accessible only to me; and storing electronic files on a secured, non-publicly 
accessible computer.   
During the actual interview, I remained considerate and flexible regarding 
duration, staying within promised timeframes, shortening interview protocols in two 
cases to accommodate tighter participant schedules (spending less time on grand tour 
questions at the start). I also rescheduled three interviews to accommodate 
participants? unexpected schedule changes. As conversation commenced, I used 
seven strategies designed to show researcher sensitivity and allow the conversation 
 68 
partner open up gradually and comfortably (H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995). First, I 
created a natural interview environment through ice breaking and rapport building 
with the participant, often in the form of chatting informally about non-threatening 
topics such as the weather, traffic, family, or mutual acquaintances or experiences as 
we walked to the interview setting. Second, I encouraged the participant?s 
conversational competence by starting off with non-threatening, grand-tour questions 
to ease discomfort and value the participant?s experience/expertise. Third, I 
empathized with the participants to encourage openness and depth, asking probing 
and clarifying questions to ensure my understanding of their word choices and phrasal 
nuances; I also respected conversation pauses and offered brief bits of self-disclosure 
to demonstrate interest in creating shared understanding. Fourth, early in the 
interview, I gathered facts and basic descriptions about the participant?s experience 
without yet asking emotionally or intellectually difficult questions; by beginning 
broadly and narrowing questions toward specific details, I allowed the participant to 
gradually ?work up to? more challenging questions. After establishing greater 
comfort and trust, I asked more sensitive questions in stage five; however, following 
H. J. Rubin and I. S. Rubin?s recommendations, I only asked such questions if they 
were necessary to gain insights into the research topic. Toward the interview?s end, I 
employed strategy six, toning down the conversation in intensity to allow participants 
to feel a greater sense of closure and less vulnerability as we ended our time together. 
In every interview, I turned the discussion around by asking the participant if 
anything had been left unasked that should be answered, allowing for greater 
empowerment in the participant?s conversation partnership. Finally, I closed the 
 69 
conversation by expressing thanks while still maintaining contact, allowing for future 
follow-up and keeping the relationship open to further development.  
Participant observation 
 Often conducted as a key data collection method for an ethnographic study, 
participant observation is defined as ?a process of learning through exposure to or 
involvement in the day-to-day or routine activities of participants in the research 
setting? (Schensul & LeCompte, 1999, p. 91). This method entails attending to and 
analyzing individual or group activities within a social context (Wolcott, 2001).  
 Validity in this method comes from the researcher?s ?witness,? from learning 
not just to notice things about the environment, but to notice them as ?evidence? 
(Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, pp. 135, 139). The level of researcher involvement in 
participant observation varies, and according to Bogden and Biklen (1998) depends 
upon the researcher?s identity, values, and personality. Lindlof and Taylor (2002) 
suggested that researcher involvement may range from being complete observers 
(watching phenomena but never participating) to complete participants (engaging 
fully with those they observe while keeping their researcher role stealth). Many 
scholars (i.e., Bernard, 1998; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Schensul & LeCompte, 1999) 
caution that complete participation may lead to decreased analytical ability; some 
researchers lose sight of their researcher role. 
 As a participant observer, I focused on participant behavior to discover social 
and cultural meanings found in the setting, attending to contextual clues while 
simultaneously thinking of perspectives other researchers might bring to the same 
setting (Wolcott, 1994). I gained entr?e through permission from several 
 70 
organizational leaders and maintained rapport through pre- and post-observation 
conversations with participants. I also displayed a tolerance for ambiguity by 
observing meetings without interruption or requests for explanation?demonstrating 
my willingness to suspend reactions and allow interpretation to formulate slowly.  
 Following Schensul and LeCompte (1999), I conducted participant 
observation by trying to capture salient features of the phenomena in concrete detail, 
discovering local meaning, ascertaining relative importance of details, and 
recognizing patterns found in social relationships and events through repeated 
observations. I also took fieldnotes (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Schensul & 
LeCompte, 1999)?detailed descriptions of individual appearance, clothing, posture, 
possessions, and other indicators of status; descriptions of the environment and 
activities underway?that served as scientific records and evidence of contextual 
clues. In addition, I recorded separately in memos my ?inferences and personal 
observations, reflections, hunches, and emotional reactions? (Schensul & LeCompte, 
1999, p. 115-116; also advocated by Wolcott, 1994) as well as research questions to 
answer in the future (Miles & Huberman, 1994).   
Participant observation offers several advantages and disadvantages as a 
qualitative research method: it locates the researcher in the community under 
observation; it enables researchers to confirm, over time, organization and 
prioritization patterns; and it provides cultural experiences that may both serve as data 
and inform other data collection methods such as interviewing (Schensul & 
LeCompte, 1999, p. 91). Participant observers may also witness events and situations 
not normally accessible to the public, providing greater depth of insight and 
 71 
understanding (p. 92). The main disadvantage, when compared with other qualitative 
methods, is the lack of in-depth, individual inquiries (Morgan, 1988); I overcame this 
disadvantage through triangulation of data collection methods?conducting multiple 
long interviews and document analysis along with the participant observation?to 
ensure greater study validity (Kvale, 1995; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Miles & 
Huberman, 1994).  
Specifically, I began informal participant observations simultaneously with 
participant interviews, noting details and taking fieldnotes while waiting for 
interviews to begin or in between interview sessions. After several weeks, I began 
more formal observations, attending various meetings and observing employee-leader 
and employee-employee pre- and post-meeting interactions.  
Document analysis 
 According to Potter (1996), documents may serve as a primary data source, 
but they may also ?provide confirmatory evidence and strengthen the credibility of 
the results of interviews and observations? (p. 96). Qualitative document analysis 
offers several advantages to other methods. In contrast to the enumeration often 
involved in quantitative analysis, the qualitative approach allows for greater concept 
emergence (Altheide, 1987). Also highlighting advantages of qualitative over 
quantitative document analysis, Berelson (1952) noted the emphasis placed on 
understanding meaning through context rather than occurrence of single words. 
Similarly, Kracauer (1952) argued that qualitative document analysis allowed 
researchers to more readily discover relationships between words and phrases. 
 72 
 Through qualitative document analysis, I examined textual symbols to 
discover meanings (Potter, 1996) within organizational documents, such as booklets 
and vision and values statements, as well as four issues of the organization?s 
employee newsletter and its website. Altheide (1987) suggested that qualitative 
document analysis exposes a message?s meaning ?assumed to be reflected in various 
modes of information exchange, format, rhythm and style. . . visual style, as well as 
in the context of the report itself, and other nuances? (p. 68). Through applying this 
method, I was able to confirm themes emerging through interviews and observations 
as well as confirm and enhance previous theoretical claims (Altheide, 1987). 
Data Collection Procedures 
Data collection for my qualitative study involved several steps, beginning 
with choosing and gaining access to my organization. Specific recruitment and 
sampling strategies informed participant selection, and careful attention to a thorough 
yet flexible interview protocol provided a framework for guided conversations while 
still empowering participants in the research process. Participant observation and 
document analysis enhanced the data from the interviews.   
Organization choice and access 
Because my qualitative case study explored a relatively undeveloped 
confluence of research areas, choosing an appropriate organization was critical. I 
began researching potential organizations to meet several key criteria: geographical 
location, size (number of employees), relatively developed internal public relations 
(employee communication) programs, potential for leader to exhibit particular 
leadership styles, and an organizational culture known for its spiritual foundations. I 
 73 
started my search on the Internet, using Google, as well as via scanning issues of the 
regional business journal, making a list of potential organizations. Next, I embarked 
on a several-step process of elimination. First, geographically, the organization had to 
be close enough to allow for multiple site visits across several months. I eliminated 
organizations beyond a 90-minute driving distance. Second, I determined that 
organizations with less than 50 employees would likely be too small to have 
relatively well-developed internal communication programs; likewise, organizations 
with several hundred employees might be more difficult for me to research 
relationship development between employees and the organization?s top leader. Thus, 
I limited my search to organizations with approximately 50-150 employees and with 
some type of official internal communication strategies in place (which I ascertained 
preliminarily through several phone calls to potential organizations).  
Because my research goals included examining potential influence of 
leadership styles on internal public relations and ensuing outcomes (i.e., relationship 
building and employee leadership development), I looked for organizational leaders 
who exhibited characteristics typical of certain leadership styles. In speaking with 
several employees of an acquaintance at one organization recently showcased in the 
region?s largest newspaper, I discovered an organizational leader with the potential to 
be an exemplar. (I should note that although I was acquainted with this leader 
personally, I did not have a close relationship with him nor had I ever researched him 
or his organization prior to this study.) In addition, in discussing my research project 
with a local management scholar, I discovered that he had also informally researched 
this leader?s style for a project, and confirmed the leader?s potential for my own 
 74 
project; the management scholar also mentioned the leader?s business philosophy, 
which seemed to fit the descriptions of a spiritually based firm (Wagner-Marsh & 
Conley, 1999). Further, I attended an opening event for a new branch of this 
particular organization, noting that the leader?s speech regarding his company goals 
further confirmed both the employees? and the management scholar?s perspectives.  
To gain access, I then contacted the organizational leader directly to discuss 
the possibility of conducting research in his organization. We discussed mutual 
benefits to conducting the research, including the resultant learning which may be 
applied to improve his organization?s internal communication processes, and agreed 
upon a starting date pending research proposal approvals. To ensure confidentiality 
and reference ease, I gave this organization the pseudonym, ?CommunityBankCorp.? 
Recruitment and sampling strategies 
 CommunityBankCorp has bank branches in eight locations (all within 90 
minutes? driving distance), with two more under construction. It employs more than 
100 people, ranging from the top organizational leader (and founder) to vice 
presidents, directors, technical employees, administrative assistants, and customer 
service employees. In addition to interviewing CommunityBankCorp?s leader, I 
conducted interviews with 20 other employees spanning the gamut of all levels and 
job responsibilities (including those working in internal public relations), and 
representing many organizational branches. The leader originally provided me with 
contact information for the public relations manager, whose position made her 
familiar with CommunityBankCorp?s structure/communication policies; she began as 
my ?encultured informant? (H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995, pp. 66-67), helping me 
 75 
gain access to interviewees and documents, and events and meetings for participant 
observation. However, just as I received IRB approval to begin field research, my 
encultured informant left the organization due to her husband?s job relocation. 
Because no other public relations manager was available, I was then introduced to the 
organization?s Chief Relationship Officer (CRO)?the dominant coalition member 
overseeing organizational public relations, who stepped in to fill the encultured 
informant role. 
 I engaged in purposive and maximum variation sampling (Lindlof & Taylor, 
2002; Potter, 1996; H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995), recruiting participants from all 
organizational levels based on their knowledge of the situation under study and their 
willingness to meet with me (H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995). From these interviews 
I began snowball sampling (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Potter, 1996; H. J. Rubin & I. S. 
Rubin, 1995), asking interviewees to identify other potential participants. I also 
attempted to engage in theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) based on 
emerging key themes. In accordance with appropriate data analysis techniques, I 
sampled until I felt I had reached saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and until I had 
considered all emerging negative cases and rival interpretations (Miles & Huberman, 
1994; Yin, 2003). I recruited participants via email and followed up with telephone 
confirmations; a copy of the email recruitment script is included in Appendix A. 
Interview protocols and procedures 
 Protocols. I developed my interview protocols (one for the top leader/founder 
and one for employees) using open-ended questions and pretested them by 
conducting two pre-study interviews, one with an organizational ?insider? and one 
 76 
with an acquaintance working in a local corporation, making adjustments to clarify 
question wording or intent. Each protocol (found in Appendices D and E) began with 
grand tour questions designed to establish rapport and researcher-participant trust (H. 
J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995). Subsequent questions increased in difficulty and 
intensity as the interview continued, but eventually decreased the same way to allow 
less participant vulnerability near the interview?s end. At appropriate points during 
the interview, I used probing and follow-up questions (H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 
1995) to clarify participant meanings or expand understanding. I also engaged in 
limited self-disclosure to increase participant trust and comfort.  
 Using the semi-structured protocol allowed me to guide the interview while 
still encouraging participant empowerment. During points in each interview, my 
conversation partners and I felt free to diverge from the scripted questions and probes 
to follow relevant tangents, often gaining valuable insights into information I may not 
have thought to inquire about. At the interview conclusion, I asked all participants if 
they had anything more to add or if I had missed asking about topics relevant to our 
discussion. I also asked participants to identify other employees who may be willing 
to engage in the study (snowball sampling). As chapter 4 will demonstrate, interview 
results were overwhelmingly positive; to delve more deeply into organizational 
understanding and to more formally validate these results, I decided after the third 
interview to add a protocol question that would challenge participants?with 
sensitivity?to be completely transparent; thus I asked participants, ?This sounds too 
good to be true?is this really for real??   
 77 
The protocols were organized according to the study?s research questions they 
answer (see Appendices D and E); excluding the opening and closing sections, all 
questions related back to literature and theory explored in chapter 2. Following 
several grand tour questions, the next section focused on RQ1, asking questions 
related to the top organizational leader?s leadership style; these questions began 
broadly, asking participants to define leadership and list characteristics of good 
leaders, and then moved to how CommunityBankCorp?s leader specifically compares 
to those definitions and characteristics. The next section was designed to answer RQ2 
by inquiring about workplace culture, leader influence on CommunityBankCorp?s 
culture, and foundational philosophies or values of CommunityBankCorp?s 
workplace culture. The third section answered RQ3, facilitating participants? thinking 
about and responses to internal public relations (employee communications) 
processes and participants? engagement in those. The final section related to RQ4, 
and asked about leader-employee relationship building practices and outcomes 
(including relationship indicators developed by J. E. Grunig and Huang (2000) and 
Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) as well as empowerment and leadership development 
opportunities and experiences. The protocol ended with closure and empowering 
questions, providing opportunities for participants to guide my study through 
previously unexplored insights and ideas for future participant recruitment. 
Incentives. Incentives recognize the value of participants? time and thoughts, 
and help express researcher appreciation. Due to funding constraints, I was not able to 
offer participants cash or even raffle-drawing incentives. However, I did offer to meet 
each participant in a restaurant or coffee shop and purchased a meal or drink for them 
 78 
as a small token of my appreciation. In addition, I expressed my appreciation for 
participants through smaller gestures, including demonstrating the value of their 
contributions through intently listening, representing their accounts fairly and 
accurately in this study, and meeting at times and locations convenient for them. 
Following the interview, I sent hand-written thank you notes to each participant, and 
provided them with a summary of my study. In addition, I conducted a member 
check, both to help gauge my study?s validity and to express appreciation to 
participants by inviting their feedback. Many participants thanked me for the 
opportunity to reflect on their experience, give voice to their opinions in a protected 
situation, and contribute to improved organizational communication (H. J. Rubin & I. 
S. Rubin, 1995; Wolcott, 1994). 
Procedures. The 21 interviews ranged from 50 minutes to 90 minutes in 
duration. To respect participants? busy schedules and make accommodations 
wherever possible, I held the interviews whenever it best suited the participants: 
during the work day (the organizational leader granted permission in advance for 
employees to take work time for this project); during breakfast, lunch or dinner; or 
even on weekends. At her request, I met one participant in her home so she did not 
have to find childcare for her infant. Although I made every attempt to hold all 
interviews off-site to ensure confidentiality, several participants requested on-site 
interviews. I accommodated but secured private interview locations in offices or 
closed conference rooms to lessen risk.  
Participant observation procedures 
 79 
 I conducted participant observation sessions for a total of approximately 10 
hours. These sessions included one-on-one and small group communication 
interactions between the leader and employees as well as other meetings and 
activities, providing insight into internal communication, relationship-building, and 
employee leadership development. With help from my encultured informant as well 
as suggestions from several other interview participants, I determined appropriate 
observation situations and locations and made arrangements to attend through 
appropriate company contacts. As planned, my long interviews, document analysis, 
and participant observation sessions informed each other and the ensuing data 
analysis provided direction for further interviews and participant observation 
opportunities. I also spent several observation hours at two different branch locations 
and was careful to observe interactions at a variety of employee levels. 
Document analysis procedures 
 For document analysis, I reviewed all foundational internal communication 
materials, vision and values policy statements, newsletters, and website materials. 
Prior to the first interview, I analyzed the organization?s vision and values statements 
as well as the 8-page foundations booklet, an employee guide to the company?s 
purpose and behavioral expectations; the foundations booklet described in detail 
company priorities, strategic objectives, preferred leadership model, cultural 
maintenance strategies, ?rules of engagement,? and communication expectations 
(including guidelines for email usage). Simultaneously while conducting interviews 
and participant observations, I analyzed the existing four issues of the organization?s 
employee newsletter, a fairly new internal communication undertaking. I also visited 
 80 
the corporate website regularly throughout my time in the field to note additions and 
changes.  
Data 
 Interview transcripts. For long interviews, each of my participants granted me 
permission to audio record. As soon as possible following each interview, I listened 
to the recordings, transcribing word-for-word my questions and my participants? 
responses to preserve their actual words and the context in which those words were 
spoken?the data of qualitative interviews. Only two tapes contained inaudible 
portions, and only one was of any length; for those situations, I inserted observer 
comment noting the essence of the missing interview portion as I could best recall it. 
Transcripts then yielded direct quotes, which became evidence supporting findings 
and results. I also recorded observer comments in my transcripts, noting participant 
emotions or intensity, body language and other non-verbal cues, potential meanings 
and emerging themes, and my own potential biases. 
 Fieldnotes. For participant observation, I recorded fieldnotes in a small 
notebook. As soon as possible after each participant observation session, I typed these 
notes, filling in details as fully as possible (Emerson et al., 1995; Schensul & 
LeCompte, 1999). As with interview transcripts, I inserted observer comments to 
address emergent themes and potential researcher biases (Schensul & LeCompte, 
1999). 
 Internal documents. The documents I reviewed served similar purposes to 
interview and fieldnote transcripts. I photocopied each document to allow for easier 
 81 
coding. As I reviewed each document, I took careful notes, added observer 
comments, and attached printouts to each document for efficient data management. 
 Personal memos. As I analyzed data from each collection method, I chose to 
follow up some observer comments by writing reflexive memos to address emerging 
themes or potential biases (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994; 
Wolcott, 2001). Memos also helped me to explore rival interpretations (Miles & 
Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003).  
Data Analysis and Interpretation 
 Qualitative data analysis/interpretation may be approached through a variety 
of procedures, some of which derives from Glaser and Strauss? (1967) grounded 
theory approach. The grounded theory approach was an appropriate framework for 
the data analysis conducted here. 
Grounded theory  
By allowing the data to form theoretical premises (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), a 
researcher ensures that the data will have good fit (not based on preconceptions), will 
work (usefulness), will be relevant (because it addresses processes and issues coming 
from within the research setting), and will be modifiable (meaning the theory endures 
over time because it is derived from the data but it is flexible enough to grow and 
change as new data emerges or further analysis is conducted). Strauss and Corbin 
(1998) argued that grounded theory more closely resembles reality because of its 
emergent, inductive process. 
 I employed grounded theory by engaging in rigorous data collection, analysis, 
and interpretive procedures designed to elevate meaning?s emergence from the data 
 82 
themselves (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995; Strauss & 
Corbin, 1998). As Miles and Huberman (1994) urged, I engaged frequently in in-
process writing, such as inserting asides and observer comments and developing 
reflexive memos; these practices helped me ?bracket? my biases (Lindlof & Taylor, 
2002, p. 80) and explore ideas while still allowing the data to ?speak? and categories 
to emerge (Wolcott, 1994, p. 10). 
Constant comparison. The constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss; 
Strauss & Corbin, 1998) involves a complex, rigorous coding process including open, 
axial, and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Through open coding, I 
carefully examined the data, line by line, over the entire document, because each 
document (i.e., fieldnotes, interview transcripts, and documents/archival writing) is 
?packed? with ?nuggets? that need to be ?mined? in order to allow the data to clearly 
speak (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 65); this process produced emergent categories of 
convergence. Next, I conducted axial coding, a process of grouping and organizing 
categories and subcategories along axes to show their interrelationships. Later in the 
coding process, I conducted selective coding to engage in conceptual and theoretical 
development. Because the entire process was grounded in the data, the emergent 
results respected the data?s significance and value?and, by extrapolation, the 
participants? significance and value.  
Coding, visual data displays, and drawing conclusions. Following Lindlof and 
Taylor (2002), I managed and tracked the volume of data?more than 550 pages of 
interview, fieldnote, and document analysis transcripts as well as reflexive memos. I 
also engaged in data reductions (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002) such as ?cooking? (Wolcott, 
 83 
2001, p. 13) and ?chunking? (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002) by coding data transcripts to 
highlight emerging themes and categories. This process was followed by conceptual 
development in which I examined the data rigorously to note linkages between 
emergent categories. These categories then drove further data collection and 
theoretical sampling as various categories began to converge and build theory. 
I used Miles and Huberman?s (1994) visual data display strategy to develop 
several visual depictions identifying relationships/links between data (or categories). 
This process helped me to break data into visually digestible chunks to draw 
conclusions leading toward theory development. I was careful to remain close to 
contextual cues and the data origins (the participants? words in the interview or the 
particular observation session) to avoid elimination of subtle differences in participant 
perspectives. I also ensured that the visual displays did not appear to be forcing data 
to fit into existing categories (Charmaz, 2000; Ellis, 1995). 
Validity and Ethics 
Accuracy and craftsmanship 
Lindlof and Taylor (2002) equated a qualitative study?s validity with 
accuracy; researchers achieve this by showing ?truth in observation,? searching for ?a 
right interpretation??although not the right interpretation, for there may be many (p. 
240). In addition, H. J. Rubin and I. S. Rubin (1995) noted that valid qualitative 
studies include transparency of the researcher?s process, consistency (accounting for 
similarities/differences), and communicability achieved through participant member 
checks to ensure that the research report reflects the participants? perspectives. Kvale 
(1995) viewed validity as socially constructed and established a study?s validity 
 84 
through three criteria: investigation (good craftsmanship/researcher credibility), 
communication (achieved through conversations with participants, other scholars, and 
the ?general public? to determine accuracy), and action (whether the study?s findings 
or results hold up under praxis). Kvale suggested that instead of creating a community 
of mistrust in each other?s work, scholars should conduct research at a level of 
craftsmanship that leaves little room for doubting accuracy. 
 Duration of fieldwork. In the data collection process, generally, longer time in 
the field increases validity. For cultural ethnographies, researchers often spend one 
year collecting data (Schensul & LeCompte, 1999). However, for other types of 
qualitative studies, scholars have suggested staying in the field long enough to 
achieve participant intimacy and depth of human understanding (Wolcott, 2001). 
Wolcott (2001) noted the importance of determining when to exit the field; 
researchers must stay long enough to eliminate performed roles. Because my 
fieldwork stretched across four months, and because I both interviewed and observed 
many of the participants, I feel confident that I am reflecting my organization?s reality 
through my fieldwork. 
Saturation 
Lindlof and Taylor (2002) suggested that researchers have conducted 
sufficient fieldwork when they have achieved data quality, data redundancy, and data 
abundance, based on Snow?s (1980) idea of information sufficiency. Snow 
determined that this criterion is reached when researchers have a sense of ?taken-for-
grantedness? (sensing ?routineness? in the field); lack of new information in data 
collection, also called theoretical saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp. 61-62); and 
 85 
a heightened sense of confidence due to validity. As I continued in fieldwork through 
observations, interviews, and document analysis, I reached a point where no new 
themes surfaced and where all emerging negative cases had been explored, giving me 
relative confidence that I had approached saturation. 
Triangulation 
 Triangulation, a convergence of several methods, several researchers, or 
several data sources, offers another strategy to increase validity (i.e., Kvale, 1995; 
Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Lindlof and Taylor (2002) 
recommended accompanying triangulation with disjuncture to address both 
similarities and differences between and within cases. This includes researcher 
commitment to examining negative cases and extreme outliers (Miles & Huberman, 
1994; Yin, 2003). Expanding the concept of triangulation into ?crystallization,? 
Lincoln and Guba (2003) further underscored the importance of thoroughly 
considering many complexities to assure convergence and account for data variance 
(pp. 279-280). I have achieved triangulation through exploring the organization with 
a three-pronged data collection approach. 
Reflexivity 
 Reflexivity, or self-reflection on the researcher?s role and voice in the research 
process, helps to address bias, or preordained theoretical perspectives that can limit 
research interpretation and findings (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). However, reflexivity 
does not require researchers to drop their own values and adopt those of their 
participants (H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995). Through my own reflexive observer 
comments and memos (i.e., Miles & Huberman, 1994), I was able to address and 
 86 
bracket my potential bias to keep focus on participants? perspectives. As Wolcott 
(2001) noted, I addressed any prejudices but also practiced ?disciplined subjectivity? 
(p. 165). My desire to conduct my research in an organization potentially 
characterized as a spiritually based firm and with an authentic or transformational 
(and potentially servant/principle-centered) leader stems from my own religious faith. 
I consider myself to be an evangelical Christian, and see congruence between theories 
in the foundational literature for this study and the tenets of my faith. In addition, I 
have experienced several workplace cultures and leaders that were not conducive to 
excellent internal public relations, employee participation and empowerment, or 
relationship building between leaders and employees. As I conducted this case study, 
I carefully recognized these biases and influences and bracketed them appropriately 
in order to ensure that themes and interpretations emerged from the data and not from 
my own desires for particular outcomes. 
Ethical treatment toward participants  
 Participant treatment and involvement also plays a role in increasing a 
qualitative study?s validity as well as maintaining ethical research practices. As noted 
in Bowen (2004), Jaksa and Prichard (1994) suggested that ethics is ?concerned with 
how we live our lives. It focuses on questions about what is right or wrong, fair or 
unfair, caring or uncaring, good or back, responsible or irresponsible, and the like? (p. 
3). During my research, I took seriously my obligation to treat my participants 
ethically and protect them from potential harm resulting from the study (Lindlof & 
Taylor, 2002; H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995). As H. J. Rubin and I. S. Rubin (1995) 
advocated, I treated participants with respect by listening carefully to understand 
 87 
culture from their point of view, and allowed them to have voice through research 
reporting. In addition, I attempted to empower participants and address power 
imbalances in the researcher-researched relationship; use multiple voices in reporting; 
anticipate strategies for handling participant-initiated hot topics that might be 
misunderstood by readers; and balance the participants? viewing of the interviews and 
observations as safe spaces to open up and reveal sensitive information (Fine et al., 
2003; M. M. Gergen & K. J. Gergen, 2003)  
Institutional Review Board 
I have complied with Institutional Review Board guidelines, obtaining 
informed consent (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 2002; H. 
J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995), which educated participants on the research?s purpose, 
protected them from deception, and allowed for their approval prior to audio 
recording. It also offered them the opportunity to ask questions, refrain from 
answering certain questions, or withdraw from the research process for any reason, 
although no participants opted for the latter two. Finally, following IRB protocols and 
procedures ensured participant confidentiality and data security through not 
identifying participant names or organizations, using locked files/offices and private 
computers for data storage, and destroying data after five years according to IRB 
guidelines.  
Member checks 
 To actively involve participants in the validation process of the qualitative 
study, I conducted member checks (Kvale; 1995; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; H. J. Rubin 
& I. S. Rubin, 1995) by mailing to them the final written account in summary form. 
 88 
In addition, I presented a summary of the findings to the organization?s senior leader 
team and provided a full copy of the report. During the presentation as well as 
through the mailings, I solicited participant feedback to help determine the account?s 
accuracy and validity (i.e., Ellis, 1995). As H. J. Rubin and I. S. Rubin suggested, one 
final confirmation of validity occurs when a researcher shares the account with 
participants and hears, ?Yes, this is the way we see it, too.? Numerous participants 
confirmed the study results as accurate descriptions of their experiences and the 
organization?s leadership style, culture, and internal communication. As one 
participant noted, ?You captured and presented the overall picture of 
[CommunityBankCorp]. Your objective observations further solidify my experiences 
here.?  In addition to receiving participant comments, I and the senior leader team 
members?at their prompting?spent time after my presentation discussing potential 
solutions to the few organizational challenges revealed through research findings. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 89 
Chapter 4 ? Results 
In this chapter, I present the results of my case study, evidenced through 
inclusion of my participants? words (discovered through interviews), details from my 
own participant observation field notes, and short portions from internal 
organizational documents produced or referred to by employees and leaders during 
the course of the study. As researcher, I recognize my responsibility to choose wisely 
and with as little bias as possible the data I present as evidence from among hundreds 
of transcript, field note, and document pages. Yet I also embrace Wolcott?s (1994) 
idea that researcher analysis and interpretations matter?and make a difference?in 
the way readers understand the data presented; in particular, Wolcott suggested, 
?Everything has the potential to be data, but nothing becomes data without the 
intervention of a researcher who takes note?and often makes note?of some things 
to the exclusion of others? (p. 4). Well aware of my own influence in the research 
process, I made every effort to allow the data to speak for themselves (Glaser & 
Strauss, 1967), and for themes to emerge from participants? words and observed 
actions/interactions as well as internal documents.   
In general, findings revealed interrelated themes. The organization?s founder 
and top leader based his leadership style on his understanding of and desire to live out 
his own religious faith; this faith foundation permeated the entire organization, from 
the top leader?s style and its influence on the way others led and managed, to the 
underlying cultural values (both expected and ?lived?), to the internal public relations 
and employee communication practices. The organization?s prescribed leadership 
style demonstrated a hybrid of characteristics found in authentic, transformational, 
 90 
principle-centered, and servant leadership theory. Cultural values, based on what the 
leader termed ?biblical principles,? focused on positive, relational interactions 
between all employees?from leaders to entry-level employees. Central to ?living 
out? the cultural values effectively, internal public relations emphasized face-to-face 
communication whenever possible, whether through formal communication channels, 
such as frequent, regular one-on-one and team meetings, or informally through 
interpersonal conversations. Specific outcomes of the confluence of three elements?
leadership style, organizational culture, and internal public relations?included strong 
relationships among organizational members as well as organizational unity and a 
commitment to employee leadership development. 
 I have presented specific findings below according to each research question 
they address, following Wolcott?s (1994) analytical framework organization pattern. 
In selecting data for inclusion, I have tried to represent nuances and subtleties in 
participant perceptions. To preserve confidentiality, I have assigned participants and 
the organization pseudonyms; I have also included participants? general position 
levels within the organization to further increase contextual understanding. 
RQ1: What leadership style is exhibited in the organization?s top leader (as self-
ascribed and as ascribed by organizational employees)?   
 CommunityBankCorp?s top leader, David, demonstrated a variety of traits and 
activities characteristic of leaders identified as authentic, transformational, principle-
centered, and servant. These include leading in accordance with one?s true self 
(authenticity), especially as born out of life experiences; establishing, sharing, and 
?living? a vision and culture consistent with the leader?s authentic self; 
 91 
communicating effectively with employees; enacting a positive, people-driven 
approach to leadership; exhibiting a servant attitude toward subordinates; employing 
individualized consideration strategies in employee-leader interactions; intentionally 
acting to positively grow and transform employees into leaders themselves; and 
recognizing and celebrating employee achievements. 
 Authenticity. David?s self-ascribed leadership style is ?positive,? authentic, 
transformational, servant, principle-centered, and born out of past personal 
experiences and a deep religious faith. Growing up in extreme poverty in a third-
world country, David described his family as ?spirit-filled? Christians, although he 
personally did not ?become a believer? until his teen years. He recalled, 
It was not a dramatic conversion experience, but rather just  
me getting on my knees and accepting the Lord as my Savior.  
But being born in a very poor family shaped a lot of my faith  
and beliefs.  
This combination of poverty and faith, coupled with educational opportunities offered 
to him in the United States, provided a strong foundation from which David pursued 
his aspirations and grew his ideas of leadership. He shared, 
When I?m talking about being raised in a poor family, I can?t even  
describe to you what that means. God?s grace has been unbelievable  
in my life. He took this skinny little kid from [a third-world country]  
who was starving, and living in the worst environment. There were five  
of us sleeping and living and working out of a five by five-foot hut. I  
remember my mother repeatedly saying, ?Sleep on your stomach so  
 92 
you?ll feel the hunger less.? Those kinds of things influence the way I  
look at life in terms of determination and appreciation for people and  
all the simple things.  
Consistently authentic vision/culture. In founding CommunityBankCorp, 
David stated that his organizational vision was based on his past experiences and 
religious faith. However, he also shared a specific, pivotal ?vision? that he believes 
came from God, a vision which led him to leave a leadership role in a large banking 
conglomerate to found a new community-based bank. Originally, David had hoped 
his high position at the previous organization would afford him many opportunities to 
spread his ?positive influence?; over time, however, a corporate buy-out, 
restructuring, and working under new top leadership made him realize that at the 
core, his values and priorities diverged from those of his previous organization. He 
recalls,  
I was going to remold [previous organization] from an old thrift  
culture into a culture that was very much people-oriented and was  
about influencing. But after the sale, as I went along, it became very  
clear that there was a difference of opinion about how you do business,  
how you conduct yourself, what you?re about, you know? 
Part of this realization came after a presentation at the New York Stock Exchange. 
During his talk, David recalled feeling restless and even ?angry in my spirit,? so that 
by the time he finished presenting, he felt very strongly that his organization as well 
as the analysts in his audience did not ?know anything about relationships, didn?t care 
about relationships or people. . . all they were worried about was how to make the 
 93 
next dollar.? He ended up leaving the meeting early, directly after his presentation, 
and caught the next plane home. He remembered driving straight from the airport to 
meet his wife at one of his daughter?s softball games. Upon arriving, he experienced a 
?vision?: 
 As I got out of the car, my daughter was getting ready to bat, and as I  
looked around, all the families were lined up around the field. As I  
stood there, I felt like God laid a vision on my heart, and that was,  
?This is what community banking is. This is what influencing people?s  
lives positively is about.? And that?s when I think God said to me, ?I want  
you to build a company that?s built on fundamental biblical principles.?  
You know, integrity, honesty, passion for what you do, caring for people.  
 The principles David recounted were similarly noted by interview participants 
as being integral to CommunityBankCorp?s vision, underpinning leadership styles 
well as its cultural values and communication processes. Many participants 
specifically mentioned David?s Christian faith or the Bible as the foundation for such 
principles. For example, senior leader team member Tamara said, ?David is a very 
religious person, and I know that has a lot to do with how he deals with individuals 
and with businesses.? Other participants?mainly those employed by 
CommunityBankCorp for six months or less?suggested that David?s leadership style 
and the organization?s culture and communication were based on ?moral? or ?ethical? 
principles and ?just treating people the ?right? way.? As Kendra, a branch teller, said, 
?Here, the leaders want to do things ?right.? It?s a better way to treat each other with 
 94 
all the craziness that goes on in society. . . just the basic treat people as you wanted to 
be treated.?  
Numerous interview participants noted that they looked to David as the top 
leader to cast the company?s vision, share it with employees, and model it in practice. 
Key to achieving that objective was maintaining a consistency between visionary 
words and lived actions. Edward stated that David was both able to identify a vision 
and to communicate it ?in such a way that people want to follow him in achieving 
that vision. . . . He excites you about the vision in a way that makes you want to be a 
part of it.? Mason, a mid-level leader, concurred, highlighting the importance of 
obtaining that vision ?buy-in? from all organizational levels: 
 I think it has to start at the top. It has to be a clear, concise, and  
agreed-on vision. At [CommunityBankCorp], the manager team  
members all have that same vision, they all agree, and that?s real  
important. If you?re not all pulling in the same direction, you?re  
gonna have a lot of difficulties.  
According to branch leader Jared, CommunityBankCorp?s vision goes beyond 
conceptual buy-in; David takes every opportunity to set the tone for reaffirming and 
living the organizational vision. ?At any function, he?s always big about working 
parts or the whole mission statement into what he?s saying,? he recalled. ?And we?ve 
heard it a million times and seen him put it into play.? When asked if such 
reaffirmation ?got old? or stale, Jared replied an immediate, ?No!? He went on to say: 
. . . Because I think we actually do it. So it?s not like we?re just  
hearing it or saying it a million times. It?s something we actually do.  
 95 
And you have to be conscious of it, so it?s good to have the refresher  
because it keeps you on your toes and keeps you thinking, ?Okay, this  
is what I have to do every day.? 
People-driven positivity. One way David enacted his vision authentically was 
through exhibiting an attitude of people-driven positivity in his leadership. According 
to him as well as to a number of participants who worked with him, David?s 
leadership style has always been based on a desire to influence others? lives 
positively, from employees to the community at large. For example, branch employee 
Michael shared that David was ?always positive. I don?t think I?ve ever heard 
anything negative come out of the man?s mouth, and he always seems to be in a very 
good mood.? Although every interview participant mentioned that David was 
?personable? or ?likeable,? the positivity went beyond simply being ?Mr. Blue Skies 
and Rainbows,? as Angela, a mid-level employee, titled David.  She noted that he 
looks at issues positively, but, 
. . . he also puts his heart into this, and I think that?s sort of what sets  
him apart. This organization isn?t about money, it?s about people, and  
to truly be able to put people first. . . . I don?t think everybody gets it,  
how lucky we are to work some place like this, but I know, and I think  
most employees know, that every opportunity [the leadership] has to  
put employees first, they do. We?re still a business and we have to  
make money, but every opportunity David has, he puts employees first. 
Jennifer, a mid-level officer, agreed, sharing that in previous organizations, David 
and other leaders he brought with him to CommunityBankCorp had found it difficult 
 96 
to watch their employees ?being miserable everyday and not want to come to work? 
because they were not valued or treated positively. ?They wanted to see their 
employees that they cared about being happy, so at [CommunityBankCorp], they 
have the chance to affect X amount of lives and X amount of families positively,? she 
stated. For Brandon, a senior leader team member, leading others through positive 
influence actually fulfilled the organization?s mission, as he noted: 
See, in banks you typically have a divide between the people in the  
branches and the sales force and the people on the operations side,  
because sometimes they can be at odds in terms of what needs to be 
accomplished. But you know, we don?t really have that here, and it?s  
because frankly we [leaders and employees] take the time to talk about  
how important teamwork is and how important it is for people to work  
well together and enjoy themselves, and, you know, to feel like they get  
to come to work, not that they have to come to work every day. 
Audrey, a mid-level employee, maintained that a people orientation set 
CommunityBankCorp apart from other organizations. She shared, 
David and all the other management team truly do put employees first, in 
every decision they make, really and truly. Every single decision it?s always 
like, ?Well, how are employees gong to take this? How is this going to affect 
them?? And I?ve never been a part of that anywhere else. It kind of takes some 
getting used to. But that?s why I?m here.  
 Balancing aggressive risks necessary to stay competitive with maintaining an 
?employees first? approach to leadership is not easy, but according to interview 
 97 
participants, CommunityBankCorp?s leadership achieved this balance well. As 
Andrea, another mid-level employee, stated, 
I think with David and his team, they take risks but they take calculated  
risks, because they know that they have 100-plus employees behind them,  
and their families, so they have to make sure when they take a risk it?s 
 not going to negatively impact them. They take calculated risks with  
their employees in mind. 
 During two senior leader team meetings observed, David highlighted the 
impact of decisions on employees; twice he reminded management of the fact that 
each employee represented a family unit, and the great responsibility the team carried 
in ensuring those families were well taken care of. When bringing discussion items to 
the table, other senior leader team members also explained issues from employee 
perspectives, going beyond financial outcomes.  
 Inspired mutual trust. Another way David, and by extension, the leadership 
team, demonstrated authentic leadership was through inspiring mutual trust. Every 
interview participant expressed trust in the leadership?s direction, as evidenced by 
mid-level officer Jennifer?s comment: ?I think part of why people want to come to 
work here is because they have trust in the leadership. It?s kind of one goes with the 
other.?  Speaking of David specifically, senior leader team member Brandon added, 
?I would pretty much follow him anywhere because I trust him that much.?  
This trust went two ways. Branch employee Michael shared that in making 
loan decisions, he felt trusted by his supervisors.  
Any time I?ve had a customer that I?ve known well but who?s  
 98 
had blemishes on their credit, and I?ve recommended a loan  
approval, the leaders have approved them and said, ?We trust  
what you?re doing.?  
Rebekah, mid-level employee, also shared a story where leadership demonstrated 
trust through backing her in a situation where she had approved a ?less than tidy? 
loan that increased the bank?s loss risk. When the loan customer was diagnosed with 
very aggressive cancer and came to the bank for assistance, Rebekah was able to 
work out financial assistance in straightening out the risky loans. As she recalled, 
?The whole thing was so sad, just horrible. But never one time did anyone say to me, 
?You didn?t do this right.? Nothing critical. It was all about how can we help, you did 
a fabulous job. Nothing but praise and support.? Other participants also described a 
sense that their supervisors trusted them to be competent on the job, yet still offered 
assistance if needed.  
 Two participants from the same branch location, both senior leader team 
members, did not perceive as great a trust. Although both felt an extremely high level 
of ?philosophical? trust from David and the rest of the management team, for certain 
business situations, they felt the level of trust to make their own decisions was less 
than satisfactory. When asked why, both believed it was a matter of the leadership 
team getting to know them and their constituents better; once the relationships were 
strengthened, they felt at least somewhat confident that trust would increase. They 
also mentioned that early in a company?s existence, every dollar ?counts? more, 
leaving little room for mistakes.  
 99 
 Mutual respect. Along with a level of mutual trust, participants described a 
level of mutual respect between CommunityBankCorp leaders and employees, a 
respect that permeated the organizational culture. ?It?s very important that leaders 
here have the respect of their people,? said senior leader team member Ryan, ?to 
make sure people respect them for who they are and for their knowledge.? Several 
participants mentioned respecting organizational leaders for their knowledge not just 
because they ?knew something.? Branch teller Kendra stated, ?The biggest thing in 
leadership is to know how it feels to be on the other side of the desk or table or 
whatever you?re working at, to understand that. The leaders here do.? Branch leader 
Jared mentioned that his leaders treated him 
. . . and everyone underneath them with respect. And if leaders treat  
employees well they?re going to give respect to other people, they?ll  
be more willing to communicate with those above them, and they?ll  
be more willing to let leaders know what?s going on out in the branches.   
 ?Servant? attitude. In attempting to authentically live out his beliefs and 
convictions through positive influence, top leader David expressed his leadership 
style through ?serving? others?within the organization and extending outward to the 
community. He explained, 
 I?ve always been a firm believer in the servant leadership model, which  
is really based on the principle of Jesus washing the disciples? feet, that 
servant attitude. So I?ve always taken the approach that in leading people,  
you want to lead by being willing to do the things that everybody?s required  
to do, but lead that by example.   
 100 
 Through his own observations and interactions with David, branch employee 
Michael also connected the servant leadership model with the top leader?s religious 
beliefs. He stated, 
I honestly and truly believe it grows out of his Christian faith. A ?normal?  
corporate system is your customers or your shareholders are number one,  
and you put your employees the next to last stage because they?re not  
considered as important as the customers or the shareholders. . . . but  
the servant leadership model is more of an understanding of how the  
process really works.  
CommunityBankCorp communicated this servant leadership through its 
?foundations booklet??an employee handbook that defines one of the organization?s 
strategic objectives as ?an authentic management style that incorporates a servant-
leader model.? The manual devoted a full page to detailing this model, which 
included four key principles: 
Grace ? kindness, compassion, positivity, predictability, diplomacy, and  
a lack of ?ego? 
Authenticity ? consistency between words and actions, honesty, setting  
clear expectations, and providing feedback 
Partnership ? maintaining a spirit of collaboration between leaders  
and employees, team involvement in decision-making, support for  
colleagues, reliability on follow-through, and celebrating individuality 
through allowing colleagues to work within their areas of strength 
Stewardship ? caring for and developing employees, the organization  
 101 
and the community, recognizing colleagues for good work, holding  
oneself and one?s team accountable, obtaining and maintaining  
technical expertise, demonstrating a commitment to facilitating  
professional and personal growth for oneself and one?s employees,  
and consistently modeling the servant leadership model daily. 
Every CommunityBankCorp employee had a copy of the booklet, and many 
participants said that the organization?s leaders lived out the written concepts in daily 
organizational practice. Many called this modeling ?practicing what they preach.? 
Others shared stories about how the leadership was willing to ?pitch in? and ?do 
whatever it takes to get the job done.? One participant, Angela, a mid-level employee, 
stated that David was ?not above doing things. He wouldn?t ask you to do anything 
that he wouldn?t be willing to do himself.? Researcher observations noted David 
scurrying around prior to meetings to ensure employees (and the researcher) had 
seats, and that water and snacks had been provided.   
Participants said this servant leadership style permeated the leadership team at 
CommunityBankCorp, trickling down to employees themselves as they looked for 
ways to ?serve? or help each other. One popular CommunityBankCorp activity 
demonstrating this leadership style in action involved David and the other senior 
leader team members cooking an employee appreciation meal (usually breakfast or 
lunch) several times a year. Michael, a branch employee, commented that this action 
was ?huge, because those folks have extremely busy schedules. To carve out that 
amount of time to say, ?Hey, you know what, we really appreciate how you take care 
of things [at work]? really shows the servant leader model.? Branch teller Kendra also 
 102 
pointed out that employees often supported each other in their work, noting, 
?Everybody?s always there for you. If somebody can?t do something themselves, 
everybody else chips in to make sure that they get it done.? In addition, researcher 
observations noted various leaders and employees offering to help each other with 
everything from moving boxes and supplies out of rooms where water damage had 
occurred during an ice storm to sharing the workload for portions of projects that 
went beyond their normal assignments.  
Individualized consideration strategies. Another important characteristic of 
David?s leadership style involved his use of individualized consideration strategies 
often evidenced within an authentic, transformational leadership style. Researcher 
observations as well as participant interviews confirmed his enactment of several 
such strategies. First, the established organizational structure itself demonstrated a 
commitment to keeping leaders visible and accessible to employees. As senior leader 
team member Ryan noted, that intentional structure helped build leader-employee 
relationships. ?It?s a very open type of management we?ve created in this 
organization,? he said. ?And in David?s management style, he doesn?t believe in a lot 
of layers. As much as we can we try to stay as flat as possible.? Tamara, senior leader 
team member who worked closely with branch employees, added,  
The levels just don?t seem to be as massive as they are with larger  
banks. . . . [There?s] less distance between the branch level and their  
regional president and the CEO, so I feel like I?m an integral part of the  
things that go on here. 
 103 
 Aside from structure, leadership accessibility and visibility came through 
?management by walking around.? David mentioned that  
. . . the most effective thing I do is wander around. . . and that?s how  
I feel like I motivate, because [the employees] are watching me, you  
know?  They?re watching the words I use, the way I interact with  
everybody, all those things. 
Employees noted David?s visibility and desire to know employees personally?from 
his first-floor office located where everyone could see him to the way he frequently 
stopped by their offices or cubicles to talk, joined them outside for a break, or walked 
to lunch with them. As branch employee Kendra noted, 
I?ve never seen it before where you can just walk in to the building  
and the public can see the CEO at the bank.. . . and one day during  
my training at headquarters, it was summer and we were going outside  
during a break, and you know, David came out and talked to every one  
of us.  
 According to several participants, David balanced building relationships with 
ensuring employees still accomplished their work. As senior leader team member 
Brandon suggested, ?He does an amazing job balancing the relationship side with the 
task side, better than anybody I?ve ever seen in that kind of position in that height in a 
company.? 
 Along with describing leadership?s commitment to building personal 
relationships with employees, participants also shared stories depicting an overall 
lack of ego among the leadership, another transformational leadership style 
 104 
characteristic. For example, entry-level employee Tara noted that at 
CommunityBankCorp, leaders were 
. . . not concerned with their titles. At other places I?ve worked, it?s  
all about the titles, but that?s not the way it is here. They?ll say, ?Don?t  
call me Mr. Whatever or President.? They?ll say, ?Call me by my first  
name,? even if you?re not at the same level. They don?t look down at  
you. They want to be at the same level. 
Mid-level employee James agreed, saying, ?The higher level people, they?re not like, 
?I?m the leader, you?re the lower person.? They?re basically saying, ?I?m the same as 
you.? So it?s not like they look down upon you because they have a higher title.? 
Andrea, another mid-level employee, summed it up this way:  ?Here, it?s not what 
position you are. It?s who you are that brings everyone to the table to make a 
successful team.? 
 In a closely related theme, participants described CommunityBankCorp?s 
leaders setting aside their egos in dealing with their own mistakes. As branch 
employee Michael noted, ?I really truly appreciate that if [the leaders] do something 
that?s not correct, they?ll come back to you and apologize, and say, ?I did this and it 
was wrong.? That?s something you don?t see very often.? 
According to numerous participants, leader visibility, desire to know 
employees personally, and lack of ego led to employees feeling comfortable 
approaching leaders at all levels with concerns, questions, and ideas. As mid-level 
officer Audrey noted, ?I?ve never been afraid to approach David with anything, you 
know, to just go stand in his office door and say, ?Hey, David, you got a couple 
 105 
minutes??? Branch leader Jared concurred, suggesting this approachability 
characterized all organizational leaders and even other employees. Senior leader team 
member Ryan confirmed an unwritten organizational policy, explaining, ?It?s all open 
door, meaning you can walk into David?s office, my office, anyone?s at any time you 
want. You don?t have to make an appointment to go to anyone?s office.? 
A few participants who worked with other employees in many branches did 
not share a sense of openness from leadership for employee concerns or ideas. ?I 
know a lot of employees that unfortunately feel more comfortable coming to me to 
bounce an idea off of me before they?ll go to their manager,? one said.   
Intentionality in encouraging growth/transformation. CommunityBankCorp?s 
leadership intentionally encouraged employees to grow and to reach their potential 
and career goals in a variety of ways. Interview participants described leadership?s 
decision-making process as participatory and collaborative. Senior leader team 
member Robert noted that on a recent Best Places to Work survey (administered 
independently as part of a state-wide contest), employee feedback indicated that  
. . . [employees] feel empowered and their opinions are being heard.  
And when you think about between 95% and 100% of our employees  
communicating that on a confidential survey, we must be doing the  
right thing.  
Branch employee Michael confirmed this perception, noting,  
Anyone in the building or in the organization has the ability to  
suggest something that would make it better. Everyone?s empowered,  
from the part-time couriers to the CEO and president, is what  
 106 
I?ve seen.  
Mid-level officer Rebekah also gave supportive evidence, stating that her manager 
?really consults with us about a lot of decisions, you know, products or marketing 
ideas or other things. He really involves me in everything, comes and seeks out my 
opinions.?  
For mid-level employee Lindsay, who helps train branch employees, receiving 
input and ideas was invaluable in improving processes. She shared, 
We just had an email come from one of the tellers the other day and it  
was like, ?This is what we were kind of thinking. What if we did this??  
And it?s nice to know that people are still thinking on how to improve.  
And we wrote her back and said, ?Thanks for the input. We?ll take it  
higher where it needs to go. We don?t have final authority on it, but  
we?ll take it there.?  
 Several participants specifically mentioned that perceived empowerment freed 
them to do their jobs more effectively. For example, branch employee Michael did 
not see ?a lot of micromanaging, which is nice. The leaders hire people who know 
what they?re doing and they let them do their job.?  
 However, two senior leader team members felt that on occasion, David?s 
focus on achieving goals occasionally led to micromanaging or less participation. As 
Gary suggested,  
Inclusion and participatory involvement by the group in forming the  
vision is vital, and David is pretty good with that. . . . But if David  
sees something and he wants it done, sometimes he?s not open to  
 107 
inclusion relative to what we?re trying to do about getting there. He  
gets very focused and doesn?t always see the forest for the trees. 
 A second vital way CommunityBankCorp leaders encouraged employee 
growth and development involved regular training. Every organizational employee 
received at least one full hour of training and development per month, in areas 
including leadership, relationship development and management, customer service, 
and cultural values maintenance. These training sessions were executed by the 
company?s Chief Relationship Officer and his team. Again, participants noted the 
importance and value of these sessions, and expressed appreciation for the 
organization?s decision to hire a CRO, despite its fairly small size (just over 100 
employees).  
Training also occurred intentionally between employees. Branch teller Kendra 
shared that ?if there?s somebody in the branch who does something well, the leaders 
want you to learn from that person, to listen and to keep your eyes and ears open.? 
Branch leader Jared appreciated the mutual coaching sessions he shared with his co-
leader, highlighting the benefits of playing on each other?s strengths to learn and 
improve processes. 
 Leaders also fostered growth by intentionally facilitating employee career 
planning. As senior leader team member Maria noted,  
We?re very focused on developing our people to their maximum  
personal potential, doing career plans on everyone so that we know  
where they want to go and they know what they need to work on to  
get there. 
 108 
Effective communication. Another critical aspect of leadership at 
CommunityBankCorp focused on leadership?s ability to communicate well. 
Specifically, interview participants noted leaders listening purposefully and 
intentionally; setting clear expectations; and confronting issues/mistakes as well as 
rejecting ideas respectfully while still preserving an employee?s value and dignity. 
For example, mid-level officer Rebekah noted,  
If there?s ever an instant ?No, that won?t work,? it?s always followed  
by a ?This is why.? And then maybe you?re educated about something  
you have no idea existed or you would have never guessed. But at the  
very least, it?s talked through. 
Employee recognition/celebration. In addition to empowerment and 
encouraging growth, organizational leaders also frequently recognized and celebrated 
employee accomplishments. Senior leader team member Brandon mentioned that 
David often contacts employees to pass on customer compliments, as evidenced by a 
story from mid-level officer Audrey. She shared that after one of her first ?solo? work 
sessions with a new employee, David emailed her and copied her supervisor, saying 
he?d heard she had done a great job and ?just wanted to say, ?Way to go! Thanks!?? 
Branch teller Kendra also highlighted leadership?s commitment to employee 
recognition, recalling that a potential hire had visited her branch on a personal ?secret 
shopping? mission to find out if the company vision was truly being carried out 
throughout the organization. Kendra said that  
. . . I really was just doing my job?I didn?t know who she was and I  
didn?t treat her any different from anybody else, but she went back  
 109 
to them and said, ?Okay, what you?re saying about this bank is  
really working.?  
Aside from special recognitions, CommunityBankCorp also plans regular 
times to express gratitude for employee work. For example, the annual employee 
appreciation week?complete with numerous employee contests, great food, and fun 
activities?has become almost legend in the company?s two short years. 
 Recognitions and celebrations also lived on through stories told in both 
leadership meetings and the company newsletter. These stories, actually ?required? in 
the foundations booklet to be told at any meeting with three or more employees 
present, noted example after example of employees going ?above and beyond? job 
expectations.  
 Several interview participants provided a contrast to consistent recognition. 
For example, mid-level employee Angela mentioned that ?we need to work on 
individual and team recognition. Some leaders are very good at it and some of them 
are not so good.? She also noted,  
 So many people here go above and beyond on a regular basis that it?s  
just become normal and expected. That?s the kind of people that we have  
together. You know, someone does something well and then so what? So  
did 65 other people!  But you?ve got to recognize it. And I think [the  
leadership] has lost sight of that a little bit. 
Mid-level employee Lindsay agreed, suggesting that although she knows leaders 
appreciate employees, perhaps they needed to demonstrate that more. 
 I?ve had coworkers, mostly in the back office, make comments to me  
 110 
like, ?Us peons?? Everybody here is important, is special, but we  
need to make sure everyone feels appreciated. Because if you don?t  
feel appreciated for your job you?re not gonna want to be there. 
 Finally, participants mentioned one other theme characteristic of 
CommunityBankCorp?s leadership: a commitment to constant improvement. Senior 
leader team member Robert noted that although the Best Places to Work survey 
revealed only two or three negative results out of more than 75, the leadership team 
spent significant time discussing ways to improve in each of those areas. Senior 
leader team member Maria also described several areas revealed by the survey as 
having ?one or two negative responses out of about 98 respondents,? noting that 
despite these ?really high? scores, the management team felt responsible to address 
the areas in question and work to improve them. 
RQ2: How does that particular leadership style influence the organization?s 
workplace culture? 
As CommunityBankCorp?s founder and current CEO, David has greatly 
influenced the establishment and maintenance of the organization?s culture through 
his leadership style. Based on spiritual foundations and what David terms ?biblical 
principles,? the organizational culture prompted a variety of participant descriptions 
such as respectful, warm/friendly/family-like, team-oriented, supportive/encouraging, 
fun/enjoyable, accommodating to personal/family life, philanthropic, and 
open/empowering/participatory. In addition, organizational leadership invested 
heavily in intentional cultural maintenance through a specific leadership position (the 
Chief Relationship Officer), cultural training, vision/values reinforcement, written 
 111 
documents (such as the foundations booklet), storytelling, appropriate hiring and 
firing, building relationships inside and outside of work, and special committee 
activities. 
 Spiritual foundation. As previously described, CommunityBankCorp was 
founded on the top leader?s desire to live his life as he interpreted it through his 
religious faith, Christianity. Other organizational employees recognized David?s faith 
foundation, and some shared the same religious beliefs, which they felt informed the 
company?s business philosophies. As senior leader team member Brandon noted, 
?Faith is strong for many people in the organization,? he said, ?and you know, that 
kind of drives who we are.? Mid-level officer Rebekah added, ?There?s no question 
to anyone. Everyone?s crystal clear on David?s faith, and for the most part, everyone 
brings the same faith to work. That?s a huge part of this organization.?  
 Although most interview participants recognized connections between 
David?s Christian faith and the organization?s cultural values, those that did not?and 
those that did not share the same religious faith?still agreed with the moral and 
ethical principles that guided CommunityBankCorp. For example, senior leader team 
member Ryan, self-identified as having a strong faith other than Christian, stated, 
We have shared beliefs about doing the right thing, about treating people  
the right way. Maybe from that it?s more of a common bond. But for a  
person [working at CommunityBankCorp] who maybe doesn?t have  
religious beliefs, I think that person still believes fundamentally how  
to treat people, how to do business in a certain manner. 
 112 
Edward, another senior leader team member, agreed, noting that although he shares 
the same Christian faith as David, 
Others in the organization might not share that faith perspective, but  
nonetheless believe in the principles that lead us in terms of respect  
for each other, respect for each other?s families, and encouraging a  
positive environment for employees, for each other, for our customers,  
and for our shareholders. 
 Although David communicated openly in various venues that his strong 
religious beliefs underscored CommunityBankCorp?s vision and values, he stated that 
he did not require employees to share his specific faith. He expected them to adhere 
to the principles he felt grew out of that faith.  
 You?ll notice we don?t sit there and say, ?You must have Jesus,?  
because our purpose is to influence people?s lives positively. It  
doesn?t matter who it is, we influence them positively, and then it?s  
going to open the door for somebody to say there?s something different  
about this place, and I don?t know what it is but I certainly would love to  
hear about it. That?s what opens the door for us to share the Gospel. Are  
the majority of our employees believers [Christian]? No, they?re not.  
There?s a fair amount that are believers but there?s a majority that are  
very nice people, great people, but they haven?t accepted Christ yet. 
Mid-level officer Jennifer confirmed David?s perceptions, stating,  
David will tell people he wants to build a biblical foundation for our  
company, but that doesn?t mean that every person in our company  
 113 
is a Christian. For example, my supervisor is [another religious faith].  
And he doesn?t disagree that the rules of engagement we follow or the  
values statement we have are actually biblically founded; he agrees  
with them. But if we were labeled as a ?Christian bank,? he would be  
very turned off by that. 
Cultural values characteristics. Participants described 
CommunityBankCorp?s cultural value in a wide range of terms, all related to the 
original biblical principles David noted. For example, mid-level officer Rebekah 
suggested that the organization?s cultural values included  
. . . honesty, integrity, kindheartedness. There?s no tolerance for,  
you know, the typical things you think of in an office, like cattiness  
and malicious things people try to do to get ahead. There?s just no  
room for any of that.  
?A lot of it is very moral,? shared mid-level employee Lindsay, ?like you give 
people the benefit of the doubt and you don?t just think that everyone is evil.? Added 
senior leader team member Gary, ?It?s the integrity, the attitude, the commitment to 
doing a good job, caring for people and for each other.  Those things are attributes in 
terms of what makes us different. It?s indicative of who we are.? 
Picking up on a theme from RQ1, David?s leadership style?which he shared 
in common with the rest of the senior leader team members?also encouraged 
CommunityBankCorp?s cultural value of respect. ?Here, it?s the Golden Rule,? stated 
Maria, senior leader team member. ?Do unto others. . . .?  Echoed mid-level 
employee Angela, ?Basically, it?s all about the Golden Rule. It really makes people 
 114 
want to help each other, interact with each other, be nice to each other. It?s a frequent 
reminder that we?re all in this together.?   
 Related to leadership-fostered respect and harmony, CommunityBankCorp?s 
cultural values also included warmth, friendliness, a sense of belonging, and a family 
atmosphere. ?CommunityBankCorp is less of a corporate mentality and more of a 
family mentality,? noted branch employee Michael. Senior leader team member Ryan 
said, ?Here, there?s a mutual affection for each other, an emotional connection. It?s 
more than just coming to work. It?s creating a bond, a relationship.? Angela, mid 
level employee, agreed, stating, ?We all really like each other for the most part, which 
is rare.? Looking to David as the model for this cultural value, senior leader team 
member Edward said,  
People really do care for each other, and I think a lot of that comes  
from the top down, because David kind of sets the tone. He?s always  
asking people about things that are going on with them, not in an  
intrusive way, but because he cares. 
 Interview participants pointed out that this cultural value distinguished 
CommunityBankCorp from other corporate cultures. According to entry-level 
employee Tara, this organization?s culture contrasted with her previous workplaces. 
Lindsay, mid-level employee, agreed. 
I mean, you go to work with these people all day, and then you hang out  
with them after work? I never would have thought about doing that with  
anybody that I worked with previously. It was like, ?No, I think I?ve had 
enough of you by now!?  
 115 
According to senior leader team member Gary, one of his friends who worked in 
banking on Wall Street, NY, did not understand CommunityBankCorp?s friendly, 
family-like atmosphere, precisely because of this contrast. He shared,  
Drives her crazy, because in New York?  No way! That?s just  
not the way it works. But she sees how I work and how I manage  
my people as friends. They?re friends first and professionals  
second. 
Teamwork translated into mutual support among leaders and coworkers alike, 
as several participants pointed out. For example, senior leader team member Ryan 
described a situation where he and two other employees covered a woman?s workload 
so she could be with her hospitalized father.  
Non-issue. . . because we know she would do the same thing for  
everybody else. That?s what it looks like for all of us in any position  
in here. People make sure they back each other up if there is ever a  
need or things need to get done.  
Allison, a branch leader, also shared, ?Here it?s supportive, you know?  People 
definitely have your back. Like I have a little one, and if she?s sick or it?s a snow day 
from school, everybody?s like, ?We got it. You go ahead!  Bye!??  
 According to numerous interview participants, CommunityBankCorp?s 
cultural values included having fun and enjoying work while still remaining 
accountable. As mid-level employee James noted, ?I love the work environment here. 
We get our jobs done, but we have fun!? Allison, branch leader, added,  
You can be yourself here. We joke. You don?t feel like, ?I can?t  
 116 
say that.? I mean to an extent?it?s a workplace, after all. But we  
can just relax. We laugh a lot and we goof off together but still get  
our work done well.  
One interview participant related the work hard/play hard cultural value to a family 
project with his children.  
We work hard but we also celebrate our successes and play hard, too. In  
fact, I was using that in one of my interactions with my kids on Sunday. 
?Here?s what [CommunityBankCorp leader] would say. . . let?s work hard  
and rake up the leaves, and then at the end with the last batch, we?ll play  
and jump in the leaves!?  
 CommunityBankCorp?s cultural values also included family and personal 
accommodations. For example, one participant who had recently given birth 
appreciated the organization?s accommodations for her during her pregnancy as well 
as upon her return to work. Another participant, Tara, was offered a variety of 
positions with flexible schedules to help accommodate her in finishing her college 
education. David shared that at one point, the management team was considering 
increased daily banking hours and opening branches on Sundays. He recalled, 
?Everyone was saying you?ve got to be open seven days a week because banks open 
seven days get more checking accounts than banks that aren?t. But we said, ?Our 
employees come first.?? After ?struggling? with the decision process, David and the 
senior leader team consulted with the branch employees themselves, who said, ?It 
would have an impact on our family life.?  
 117 
 CommunityBankCorp leadership also valued philanthropy in the communities 
the bank serviced. As noted in the organization?s foundations booklet, all bank 
officers (not just top management) were required to serve in three community 
organizations and hold a leadership position in one. Branch teller Kendra approved of 
this expectation for individual philanthropy. ?They expect that of you, that you are on 
some other board, a non-profit, something that you?re giving back,? she said. Mid-
level officer Jennifer added, ?The goal of this involvement is to positively affect the 
community at large. Yes, it gets our name out there, but it also gives back to the 
community at a different level.? In addition to employees? individual philanthropic 
and service endeavors, the foundations booklet also detailed a company commitment 
to contributing ?actively and generously? in the communities it served. As evidence, 
researcher observations noted CommunityBankCorp sponsorship banners at the local 
ice hockey rink, Little League and Youth Soccer sponsorship plaques, and ads in 
local school event programs.  
Finally, the foundations booklet noted a requirement for each 
CommunityBankCorp branch to plan and implement an annual community 
involvement project to benefit its local community. Participants described numerous 
?Community Day? projects, from breast cancer awareness activities to Relay for Life 
cancer research fundraising to taking part in the annual city Thanksgiving Day parade 
celebrations by opening up the branch to parade attendees for cookies and punch. 
Through these bank-sponsored activities, employees were encouraged to find creative 
avenues for ?giving back.?  
 118 
 Finally, nearly every interview participant highlighted leadership?s 
commitment to maintaining the cultural values of openness, empowerment, and 
employee participation in decision-making. ?We definitely have an open door policy 
where we say, ?Let?s talk about this, let?s figure this out,?? noted Andrea, mid-level 
officer. Senior leader team member Ryan also suggested,  
I think our culture is very engaging. We want to engage employees  
and even customers in the process so they feel like they?re  
actually part of our bank. We?re trying to build our culture for  
the long-term. 
 Cultural values maintenance. According to interview participants, as 
CommunityBankCorp continues to grow?and every participant expected that indeed, 
the organization would continue to grow and achieve even greater success?
maintaining its cultural values will require even greater intentionality. In fact, many 
participants believed that without intentional cultural maintenance, the organization 
would lose its distinction, resulting in slowed growth and perhaps less success in the 
bottom line.  
Several interrelated themes emerged detailing CommunityBankCorp 
leadership?s enactment of intentional cultural maintenance strategies: hiring a Chief 
Relationship Officer, continuing ongoing cultural training, communicating the 
vision/value statements, engaging in cultural storytelling, continuing participatory and 
informed hiring practices, promoting relationship-building informally and through 
activities, and tying cultural values engagement to performance reviews. 
 119 
First, about six months into the company?s existence, CommunityBankCorp 
leadership created the senior leader team member position of Chief Relationship 
Officer (CRO). This position carried responsibility for oversight of marketing and 
external public relations, internal public relations, employee training, customer 
service, and human resources, as well as some sales support. According to the CRO, 
cultural maintenance was integral to achieving success in each of those areas. Taking 
the step early in the company?s history to hire a CRO represented a large investment 
in maintaining cultural values, as senior leader team member Gary noted.  
David hired [the CRO] for one main reason?because day one, even  
though we were not in a position to afford a person of this caliber,  
David wanted to instill within the bank the value system that  
CommunityBankCorp?s going to be about. 
Senior leader team member Edward added, ?I?m just amazed that we have somebody 
like that in our organization at this size and that we can place that much emphasis on 
the role that he plays. He does a great job of pulling us back to the cultural values.?  
For David, the decision to hire a CRO was clear from the start. He recalled, 
 I really felt like I was being led, that this was a commitment we needed  
to make. And I was convinced and had such a peace about it that within  
six months people were going to say, ?I understand exactly [why you  
hired the CRO].? But what they didn?t understand then was the 15-20  
year vision. [The CRO]?s benefit? It?s not today. It?s not next year. It?s  
15 years from now, when what this company will be is based on the  
foundation of what the CRO was charged with. I?ve said to him,  
 120 
?You?re the keeper of our DNA,? which comes down to hiring  
the right people, training them, repeating our values, and keeping that  
process going. 
 Training, for which the CRO had oversight responsibility, played a key role in 
maintaining CommunityBankCorp?s cultural values. For a few interview participants, 
the training sessions did not always introduce them to new concepts, and on occasion, 
several expressed mild annoyance at having to spend a lot of time focusing on values 
they already felt they were applying on the job. Others welcomed the opportunity to 
?interrupt? the busy pace of normal workdays and refocus on the organization?s 
vision and purpose.  
Another intentional cultural maintenance strategy occurred through frequently 
and effectively communicating the organization?s vision/values and creating 
employee buy-in. The organization?s vision and value statements read as follows: 
 Vision Statement: [CommunityBankCorp] will be a high performing  
regional financial services company that creates financial success for  
consumer, business and not for profit customers in the [Eastern United  
States] markets. 
Value Statement:  [CommunityBankCorp] is committed to attracting  
and retaining employees that are passionate about providing  
uncompromising service to our customers with a sense of warmth,  
integrity, friendliness, and company spirit. We value and respect each  
other because we truly believe that our success only comes from working  
together for our team?s success. 
 121 
Researcher observations noted frequent reminders of the vision/values 
statements. Printed cards displayed the statements on employee desks and 
workstations, screensavers scrolled them across every computer screen, and leaders 
and employees referred to portions of them at every meeting observed. Corporate 
newsletters also published the vision/values statements, and their themes were 
explicitly or implicitly woven throughout articles. In addition, strategic cultural 
values maintenance involved vision/values communication through using the 
foundations booklet as part of new employee orientation as well as ongoing training 
sessions. Interview participants frequently discussed portions of the foundations 
booklet as the focus of their recent training sessions, underscoring the importance of 
constant reminders to keep them focused on the organization?s purpose. For example, 
senior leader team member Brandon mentioned connections between the 
vision/values statements, the foundations booklet, and the organization?s spiritual 
foundations.    
If you look at our foundations booklet, things in there like be loyal to  
the absent, and not gossiping about people. . . if you read the Bible  
there?s a tremendous amount of information about not gossiping and  
how destructive it can be and how poisonous your tongue can be. So  
there are many parallels there between our booklet and the Bible, and  
it?s a driver for us, absolutely. 
Senior leader team member Edward also found the foundations booklet unique among 
corporate policy manuals or employee handbooks he had viewed. 
 This booklet is one of those things that is so contradictory to  
 122 
anything that I?ve ever seen before in a corporate kind of setting. It  
talks about how we treat each other and how we treat the customers,  
and the first word in there is grace.  
And senior leader team member Robert noted, ?I think a lot of companies may have a 
booklet like this, but the question is, are they living it?? 
 A third cultural maintenance strategy involved storytelling to highlight and 
promote organizational values. In fact, the foundations booklet required storytelling 
as part of its corporate guidelines. As Brandon, senior leader team member, 
explained,  
One of the things that we do to carry on our culture is we have  
these little story-telling sessions, where any time three or more  
employees are together in a meeting, we?ll tell a story about the  
culture to kind of illustrate it and clarify it and perpetuate it. 
Noting these storytelling sessions first-hand, researcher observations found 
that on three different occasions, a 90-minute meeting began with at least 15-20 
minutes of leadership sharing such stories about employees assisting customers with 
exemplary service (such as driving to a business customer?s retail location in a 
snowstorm to pick up a deposit because the customer was afraid to drive in bad 
weather), helping each other accomplish tasks during crunch times (such as an 
employee voluntarily coming in the day before her wedding to help a co-worker with 
a particularly difficult project), or jumping in to cover for a forgotten detail (such as 
an employee who put the DJ bill for the company Christmas party on his personal 
credit card because the employee planning the party had forgotten to get a check cut; 
 123 
he was reimbursed, but his willingness to voluntarily do so in the first place was 
recognized). For every story told at a leadership team meeting, attendees cheered and 
clapped voluntarily, showing genuine appreciation for the way employees were 
?living the CommunityBankCorp cultural values.?  
As a fourth cultural maintenance strategy, CommunityBankCorp practiced 
?right hiring.? As Audrey, mid-level employee, noted, ?When we hire people, we 
look for someone who has a good fit for the job, who has the skills and abilities we 
need, but then also someone that would be a good cultural fit.? Mid-level officer 
Rebekah agreed. 
The higher managers really put a lot of attention to hiring right. You  
know, when we?re looking for someone, they could have the absolute  
best skills, they could be the best at what they do, but if they don?t fit  
from a personality perspective or from a cultural perspective, we just  
don?t bring them on board.  
Senior leader team member Brandon shared that the foundations booklet 
actually served as the basis for the interview process, noting Human Resources 
provided all prospective employees with a copy of that booklet and spent significant 
time discussing its contents to ensure job candidates had a clear picture of the 
organization?s cultural values and expectations prior to taking a position.  
Returning to the idea of CommunityBankCorp?s cultural ?DNA,? top leader 
David noted the importance of including multiple employees in the hiring process to 
ensure cultural maintenance. As he stated,   
That DNA is built around values like people having a positive and  
 124 
cheerful attitude, having honesty and integrity and caring for people. . .  
people who are family-oriented, who are community oriented. That?s  
the DNA makeup here. So we have four or five people interview everybody  
that comes in because every time we hire somebody we want them to add to  
our DNA positively.  
 At times, ensuring cultural fit meant leaving key positions open for months 
prior to finding the ?right? hire. It also meant firing people who, at the start, appeared 
to fit the culture but in the end, did not. Jennifer, mid-level officer, noted, ?We don?t 
tolerate people treating other people with ill will. I mean, there?s people that have 
been let go because they?ve done things that were disrespectful to other employees.?  
 CommunityBankCorp also maintained its cultural values through informally 
and intentionally encouraging employees and leaders to build relationships and 
simply ?have fun? with each other. As previously noted, employees informally spent 
time getting to know each other during breaks, at lunch, and through after-hours 
encounters. Often, leaders and employees enjoyed casual times together through 
sharing meals out, stopping for a drink after work, or watching sports or movies 
together in their homes. CommunityBankCorp leadership also intentionally promoted 
relationship building through sponsored activities at work. For example, soon after 
the company started, senior leader team member Maria was charged with creating a 
Spirit Committee to brainstorm and implement regular activities to engage employees 
and leaders with each other. Key to that committee?s success, Maria contended, was 
engaging employee involvement from every branch; regular meetings and idea 
 125 
solicitation from across the organization ensured stronger activity participation while 
at the same time raising employees? feelings of empowerment and collaboration. 
A final CommunityBankCorp cultural maintenance strategy involved tying the 
cultural values to performance reviews. This strategy built on all the others to 
continue driving home to employees the importance of keeping the organization?s 
cultural distinctions alive through daily practice. As David explained,  
We rate employees not just on how good they are at their job but how  
well they match with values. They measure it when it hits their  
pocketbook because they can get a rating on values. . . . And I say to  
them, ?Don?t make me a liar!? Because if they don?t live out these values  
then somebody?s gonna say, ?David, you?re a liar because you say this is  
what you?re about but the people aren?t living it.?  
RQ3: How does that leadership style influence internal public relations (employee 
communication) practices?  
CommunityBankCorp?s leadership model greatly influenced the 
organization?s internal public relations and employee communication practices. As 
senior team leader Brandon noted,  
If you have leaders doing the right things, you?ll always have open  
communication because you won?t have fear in the workplace. People  
will feel their opinions matter and they?ll feel valued. So you?ll get  
that open communicating if leaders are leading in the right way. 
In particular, CommunityBankCorp?s top leader David?as well as the rest of the 
senior leader team?exhibited authentic, participatory, and open communication 
 126 
consistent with the organization?s prevalent leadership style. Formal internal 
communication processes fell under the Chief Relationship Officer?s purview, and 
flowed through a variety of channels. Within the formal processes as well as 
informally, CommunityBankCorp?s internal communication was characterized by 
timely, open, two-way, and supportive transactions.  
Leader communication characteristics. Interview participants said that leaders 
communicated ?well? and frequently, and set clear expectations, practiced good 
listening skills, and acted beneficently in confronting issues or rejecting ideas.  
First, as senior leader team member Maria mentioned, ?Regular and frequent 
communication is important, and we?re really requiring of our leaders in that way.? 
Branch leader Allison concurred, stating, ?Here, they communicate. You know what 
their vision is and you don?t have to guess, and everybody knows what their 
expectations are of the organization and of the individual.? Rebekah, another mid-
level officer, added, ?David makes it clear where we?re going and what?s expected, 
and then he walks the walk rather than just being a figurehead that shouts out 
commands and then does his own thing.?   
Numerous participants also pointed out that David and other leaders truly 
listened to employee ideas. Senior leader team member Robert found David?s 
listening ability surprising, saying, 
The biggest thing I?ve found about David is I didn?t expect him to be  
as good of a listener as what he is. He?s been very successful and has  
a very good reputation, and until you get to know him, you would expect  
that because of those qualities he wouldn?t be as good of a listener as he is.  
 127 
Brandon, another senior leader team member, agreed, noting a give-and-take 
approach to idea exchange. 
David and I sit down and we talk about things and we work through them,  
and we don?t always see the same things in the same way. Sometimes he?ll  
just say, ?Brandon, we have to do it this way,? and sometimes he?ll say,  
?Brandon, it?s your call.?   
 Participants stated that David?s model of listening was shared by other 
organizational leaders as well. In fact, senior leader team member Robert noted that 
?listening well??and empowering employees by doing so?was actually part of 
CommunityBankCorp?s monthly leadership training. 
When someone comes in and there?s an issue, I don?t try to resolve their  
issue but actually let them work their issue out and I just listen. Our  
leadership is being trained at not being forceful in a conversation, but  
rather kind of let [the employee] bring it out on the table and kind of  
help them along by listening.   
Participants noted David?s expertise in communicating value for others, 
evidenced in the way he preserved employee dignity even when confronting an issue 
or rejecting an idea. As branch employee Michael shared, 
Even if David?s upset about something, he always has a kind and positive  
way of explaining what was wrong. And if you tell him something and he  
totally disagrees with it, he tells it back to you why he doesn?t agree with  
you in a positive way that you feel he actually listened to what you had to  
say and is responding to it.  I see that with the way that all the leaders act.  
 128 
Michael also appreciated that leaders were quick to confront mistakes rather than 
storing them up, and helpful in their confrontations. For dealing with disagreements 
or differences of opinion, senior leader team member Maria encouraged employees to 
resolve matters quickly and only involve the affected parties. She noted that modeling 
this conflict resolution strategy helped to foster strong communication as well as 
respect for others?key cultural values for the organization. 
Senior leader team member Brandon summed up CommunityBankCorp?s 
leadership communication as follows: 
It?s about frequency of communication. So it?s sharing as much as you  
can as often as you can. It?s also about setting clear expectations, giving  
people candid feedback, confronting people when things are not going  
right but doing that in a way that fixes the problem but keeps the person?s  
self-esteem high and keeps the relationship in tact long-term. 
Formal internal communication processes. All formal internal communication 
processes at CommunityBankCorp were created and implemented by employees 
reporting to the Chief Relationship Officer. In particular, formal communication 
occurred through the company intranet website, email notices and blasts, a quarterly 
newsletter, company-wide voicemail messages, and face-to-face supervisor/employee 
and team meetings. Again, the foundations booklet outlined guidelines and 
expectations for internal communication. 
First, ?Rules of Engagement? included the following communication-specific 
guidelines: be loyal to the absent (regarding gossip); give people the benefit of the 
doubt; don?t make assumptions; respond to the person, not the position; and approach 
 129 
every situation in a positive helpful way. In addition, written customer service 
expectations?which several participants said were to carry over into employee 
interactions as well?grew out of the acronym GREET (G = Glad, R = Ready, E = 
Eager, E = Enthused, T = Tuned in), and delineated communication-related 
explanations for each word in the acronym. One booklet page provided directions for 
company emails, including best usage (sharing information, summarizing meetings, 
scheduling, recounting decisions, recognizing people for good work, and asking 
simple questions) and practices to avoid (when someone is angry, with potentially 
controversial or negative interpretations, with potentially confusing content, when 
trying to persuade). In addition, guidelines reminded employees of common 
courtesies such as ?please? and ?thank you,? and directed employees to choose the 
telephone or face-to-face conversation over email exchanges when possible or when 
in doubt as to appropriate email usage. 
Through researcher observations and in the context of interviews, participants 
frequently underscored the company?s preference for face-to-face communication. 
Senior leader team member Ryan said,  
If it doesn?t need to be done in email, don?t do it in email. Pick up  
the phone, because when you talk to somebody, you pick up something  
in their voice which you never pick up in email, and you might pick  
up something in email never meant to be there.  
Lindsay, mid-level employee, added, ?Usually, we go face to face here, which is kind 
of nice. It?s easier to understand people face to face.? Mid-level officer Rebekah 
summarized, ?I can?t think of any other place that took the time to care, the time to 
 130 
educate employees about appropriate ways to use email correspondence. But then 
again it all boils down to our culture. Things like that matter here.? 
 In addition to encouraging in-person communication over email or telephone 
(except where face-to-face communication was not possible), CommunityBankCorp 
used frequent, regular meetings as part of its formal internal communication process. 
Participants at all levels were aware that senior leader team members met every 
Wednesday, and appreciated that within about 24 hours, the leaders held team 
meetings to share information discussed by the management. In those team meetings, 
leaders also solicited employee feedback and ideas, which they then took back to the 
next senior leader team meeting. Several other company groups, such as those titled 
?officers? and various committees (loan, Spirit, etc.) met at least quarterly or even 
monthly. And those senior leader team members and committee members working 
remotely (not at the main headquarters) came on site at least monthly for meetings; 
weeks when they did not attend regular meetings in person they participated by 
conference call.  
 Two participants who worked closely with branch employees expressed 
concern that perhaps not all branch leaders were keeping their employees as informed 
as they should. These participants ?just had a sense? that sometimes branch 
employees felt left out or less ?in the know.? In addition, some participants, 
especially those not on the senior leader team, sometimes found the multitude of 
meetings ?a little? frustrating. As mid-level employee Lindsay stated,  
You have to go to these meetings, and you want to find out what?s going  
on because it has to do with you! So it?s nice to know what?s going on,  
 131 
but at the same time sometimes the meetings seem just pointless.  
The days when you feel overwhelmed with other work are the worst,  
because you just sit there with all these things on your mind.  
Lindsay did note that at times when she faced a particularly tight deadline for 
something, her supervisor was willing to allow her to leave meetings early or skip 
them altogether. 
 Aware of the occasional employee frustration over the amount of meeting 
time, David maintained that ?face time? was critical to excellent internal public 
relations and leader-employee communication.  
 I like the face to face. People will look at it and say, ?That?s a lot of  
time,? and I say, ?No, it?s not the time, it?s the process of having a  
weekly meeting where you?re looking at people eyeball to eyeball,  
face to face, watching their tone and just their facial expressions. That  
builds accountability.  
Internal public relations/employee communication characteristics. 
Participants described the organization?s internal communication as frequent, timely, 
open, and two-way. For example, branch teller Kendra stated,  
The communication is out there and it?s open. I don?t see anything  
hidden. And we?re informed when things are going to change, which  
is nice. In a lot of companies I?ve worked for the public would know  
before we would know internally what was happening. We wouldn?t  
have a clue. But it seems like they?re on top of that here. 
 132 
Mid-level employee James agreed, noting, ?Here, they keep us in the loop and let us 
know what?s going on.? Senior leader team member Tamara added,  
There?s a lot of communication here. Regional supervisors meet  
with their direct reports at least once a week to find out how things  
are going, and that two-way communication holds everybody  
accountable. 
 Participants noted that this open communication sometimes provided 
information beyond that required. As Allison, branch leader, described, ?My 
supervisor is very, very open. She tells us stuff we don?t necessarily need to know, 
but it?s really nice to know. And it?s nice to have that information.? Added Jennifer, 
another mid-level officer, ?I might not see the reports senior management sees every 
Wednesday, but on a quarterly basis I know if we?re on target. I have the information 
I need to know where the growth is, where I need to be.?  
 Participants especially appreciated that leaders communicated information of 
all types. ?Good communicators communicate consistently rather than just things that 
they want you to know. David will share the good with the bad, and I think that?s 
crucial. I don?t want to just hear what they want me to hear,? said mid-level officer 
Rebekah. 
Robert, senior leader team member, summarized CommunityBankCorp?s 
internal communication as follows: 
 Our employees feel like they?re informed with what?s going on.  
They know the direction of the company, where the company is going.  
And when you have people that are informed, and they feel like  
 133 
they can make a difference, everyone in our organization can make  
a difference, I think it will go a long way for what we?re trying to  
accomplish. 
 Although participants generally felt informed and described internal 
communication as open, two negative examples emerged. First, branch leader Allison 
shared that on one occasion, her team was not informed about an employee stock 
option program until the program was closing. Second, branch employee Michael 
explained that sometimes being in the loop meant knowing information as it was still 
under discussion, which potentially caused confusion.  
 With it being as open as we are here sometimes you get told this or that  
and then it changes before you even know it. I might hear something in  
the middle of a discussion or at the beginning of plans for something.  
And then by the next time I hear about it it?s been completely changed.   
RQ4: How does the confluence of this particular leadership style, the organization?s 
internal public relations practices, and workplace culture facilitate leader-employee 
relationship building? What are the resulting outcomes of leader-employee 
relationship building? 
 As clearly evidenced under RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3, CommunityBankCorp?s top 
leader, David, ascribed to specific spiritually based principles that provided the 
foundation for the organization?s promoted leadership style, cultural values, and 
internal public relations practices. The confluence of these three elements working 
together led to well-developed, strong, and positive leader-employee and employee-
employee relationships. As senior team leader Edward noted, it made sense that 
 134 
genuinely caring for and liking each other contributed to relationship building. 
?Because you enjoy the people you work with,? he said, ?you have strong 
relationships with the people you work with.?  Mid-level employee Audrey added, 
?Everyone here has had a positive effect on me. I can?t think of a single negative 
relationship that I have or one that has hindered me being able to do my job or the 
progress of the organization.? In addition, senior leader team member Gary suggested 
that relationship building develops a care for fellow workers as well as customers that 
has proven both distinctive and critical in CommunityBankCorp?s short history. 
We?re a bank that prides ourselves on the way we take care of each other  
and the way we take care of our customers, because it?s all the same  
environment. I think that?s what makes us different and that?s key to what  
our growth is. It?s a team that knows each other, we?re proven performers,  
and we?re successful as a result of that. 
As mentioned by participants, several key indicators demonstrated 
relationship strength and organizational unity, including trust, control mutuality 
(empowerment), organizational commitment and loyalty, motivation/productivity, 
and job satisfaction/enjoyment.  
Trust. Participants affirmed their trust in CommunityBankCorp?s leadership as 
well as in its vision and the future of the organization. In particular, trust took on 
various forms with subtle differences. For example, senior leader team member 
attributes trust to strong interpersonal relationships, stating, ?What we have created 
and what kind of makes our organization special goes back to getting to know our 
people not just professionally, but personally. I think by doing that it creates trust.?   
 135 
For other participants, leaders earned trust through keeping their word. As 
mid-level officer Audrey, suggested, ?I would say I trust the members of 
management. When someone tells you something, they?re genuine, they mean it.? In 
addition, mid-level officer Rebekah noted, ?Trust is something that?s built by follow 
through.  Here we see come to fruition what [the leaders] have promised or said 
they?d do and having them back you up or support you when you make a decision.? 
Especially critical in a start-up organization, trust that leaders were concerned 
for their employees individually as well as for the organization?s future also emerged 
as a theme. Mid-level employee Andrea shared, ?I really just believe in where our 
team and David are taking the company.  I believe they are taking us in the right 
direction for the right reasons.? Rebekah added,  
It?s all new and scary, a new bank, and sometimes it all seems very  
overwhelming. But many times if I?m worried about something, I just  
think to myself, well, David will have it covered. I?m sure it?s been  
thought through. I definitely think there?s that level of trust. 
However, trust at CommunityBankCorp did not mean that employees felt 
completely comfortable doing or saying whatever they wanted within the 
organizational context. Senior leader team member Tamara explained, 
Is there a level of trust that you can always say what you want to? No,  
I mean certain things I would like to say, no. You have to weigh what  
is really important. But I trust that I can go to my supervisor with anything.  
There?s a great level of trust that you can confide in somebody if you need  
assistance or aren?t sure how to handle something the right way. 
 136 
One negative comment regarding trust emerged from the research. Michael, a 
branch employee, described a situation where an employee friend of his felt that one 
leader had not followed through on something that was promised within a particular 
timeframe. ?I may only be hearing one side of the story,? he shared, ?but it does make 
me a little cautious. . . . and it?s not a good testimony for that leader. But on a scale of 
1 to 10, I?d still rate my trust as a 9.5.? 
Organizational commitment/loyalty. According to participants, trust built on 
strong relationships led to greater loyalty and commitment. CommunityBankCorp?s 
status as the #1 Best Place to Work reflected employee loyalty and satisfaction, but 
participants detailed ways they and their co-workers demonstrated their 
organizational loyalty. Some showed commitment through extra time and effort on 
the job. As senior leader team member Edward noted, ?Because someone trusts you 
to do your work, you?re more willing to work extra hours, to put in the time that?s 
required.? Mid-level employee Lindsay concurred, stating,  
There?s a high loyalty. Most anyone will stay past normal hours to get  
things done. . . . You don?t have to, but you want to stay and help. You  
could say this is an 8-5 job and I?m out of here, but I?ve never seen  
anybody do that. 
For others, like mid-level officer Rebekah, loyalty came through willingness to work 
for slightly lower pay, at least in the bank?s first few years. Commitment and loyalty 
also manifested themselves through employee retention. Jared, branch leader, noted, 
CommunityBankCorp is very big on retention because we want  
employees that are going to come to work here and stay here and  
 137 
grow with the company. And in any other bank you look at in the  
area the turnover rate is astronomical. Branches are turning over like  
3-4 times a year sometimes. But here you don?t see that.  
 Motivation/productivity. Another relationship indicator present at 
CommunityBankCorp was employee motivation and job productivity. In particular, 
participants noted that the combination of leadership style, workplace culture, and 
strong communication increased their desire to work hard and help the company 
succeed. For example, mid-level employee James stated,  
If you treat employees right, they?ll give it right back in return with  
their work and everything else. A lot of corporations treat the customers  
first and then look at the employees.  Here it?s that the leaders care about  
you and want to make sure everything?s okay. If anything is wrong, they  
are here for us. And then of course that makes you want to be that way  
with your customers, too.  
Rebekah, mid-level officer, added,  
I personally try to do the absolute best job that I can do. You have a  
stake in it, you know?  I?ve worked at companies where, well, especially  
when I first got out of college, I could have cared less. I was just putting  
in time. This is not like that at all. 
 Job satisfaction/enjoyment. As evidenced in the previous data, participants 
derived great satisfaction from working at CommunityBankCorp. Mid-level 
employee Lindsay enthused, ?I really love working here. I love our leaders and my 
coworkers. It?s a great place to work! I mean, I enjoy coming to work and I?m not 
 138 
planning to leave.? Entry-level employee Tara said, stating, ?I just love the people, 
the environment, the company, everything about it here!? 
 Job satisfaction and enjoyment also trickled out from participants to 
community members through informal, often serendipitous organizational promotion. 
For example, branch leader Jared described encounters with friends and 
acquaintances who ask him about his job. ?When people ask me where I work, I don?t 
just tell them where,? he said. ?I tell them a little bit about it and it?s an exciting 
thing, and I try to get them pumped up. I think it?s fun here! I really enjoy it.?  
 Additional relationship outcomes. Two other relationship-building outcomes 
emerged from participant interviews and researcher observations: organizational unity 
and leadership development. First, a powerful sense of unity pervaded the 
organization. As senior leader team member Ryan noted, ?Our employees are the face 
of the organization, and they are all on the same page, being engaged, wanting to 
come to work.? Mid-level employee Lindsay added, ?I think everyone here feels the 
same sense of responsibility.? In addition, senior leader team member Maria 
commented, ?We all kind of believe in the same values, so that really helps knowing 
that we have the same beliefs, the same ideas, the same expectations. That kind of 
grounds people.? 
For top leader David, unity meant synchronizing all aspects of the 
organization to achieve an integrated whole. He explained that leadership style, 
communication, and cultural values contribute to CommunityBankCorp?s brand. ?At 
the end of the day, [our employees] hear us talking about it, they see leaders living it, 
and it?s all in alignment, which is what most companies are missing.? 
 139 
Second, with regard to leadership development, CommunityBankCorp?s 
leadership style, cultural values, and internal public relations empowered employees 
to grow as leaders within the organization. As previously described under RQ1, 
specific leadership training and coaching sessions through the CRO?s office, leader 
modeling across the entire senior leader team, and intentional career path planning all 
increased employee opportunities for leadership development. In addition, 
collaborative decision-making and problem-solving helped employees hone their 
leadership skills through less formal means.  
 Another concrete way leadership development will be implemented in the 
coming year involves head tellers becoming an integral part of the bank?s 
performance review process. According to Maria, the process will start with branch 
managers modeling how to train, set expectations, teach process, and give guidelines. 
 Top leader David added his own vision and purpose for employee leadership 
development.  
When you look at the average age of the current leadership team, it?s  
43!  So I?ve always said to them, it?s a young team. So 20 years from  
now, someone might be wanting to buy us out and we might be saying,  
?What do we want to do with this company??  And if that?s so, shame  
on us. Because at that time if we haven?t developed the next generation  
of leaders, then we may not have a choice. But if we?ve developed the  
next generation, I would like nothing more than to walk away and say,  
?Now you guys take over with the same vision.? 
Future challenges 
 140 
 Although not specifically sought through the research questions or interview 
protocol, future challenges for CommunityBankCorp emerged as a theme from 
participant interviews and researcher observations. For participants, challenges 
emerged in two areas related to growth: sometimes overwhelming job responsibilities 
and concern for cultural maintenance.  
Overwhelming job responsibilities. In its two short years, 
CommunityBankCorp became the fastest-growing start-up bank in the history of its 
state. Equipped with an aggressive growth plan in the coming years, the 
organization?s status is unlikely to change. However, participants noted that despite 
their excitement in being part of the organization?s success, at times the whirlwind 
pace left them feeling a little overwhelmed. As mid-level officer Audrey commented,  
?Sometimes I feel like if I was just doing one thing I could do it really well, but I?m 
doing three of everything and I feel like I?m not doing them all well. So sometimes I 
with it would just slow down a little bit.? Branch teller Kendra expressed concern 
over the organization?s ability to maintain its relational distinctives with customers, 
saying,  
[In previous jobs] I?m used to fewer bodies mass-producing people in  
and out the door. But here they want you to take time with the customers,  
spend time, and that is different. But sometimes it worries me that we?re  
not building thick enough before we?re spreading out. 
Andrea, a mid-level employee, added,  
 I think as we continue to grow, the responsibilities that we all have are  
obviously going to be maxed even more. And while we don?t mind wearing  
 141 
1,000 hats, sometimes they can get top heavy! So I think we need to 
remember that while it?s okay to expand out, you also need to expand  
within. And this coming year, we also need to make sure we spend a  
greater emphasis within the branches, really getting them operationally  
sound and even more effectively working as a team. 
 Concern for cultural maintenance. Many participants expressed concern that 
as the organization continues to grow, the ?family? feel and personal relationships 
could get lost. Mid level officer Jennifer commented,  
I ask this all the time.  I always say to my supervisor, ?Remember when  
there was like 12 of us?? And you know, I wonder what it?s going to be  
like in five years. Is it still going to feel the same?  I don?t know. But the  
forward thinking and the intentional things that the company is doing is  
trying to ensure that we protect that. 
Senior leader team member Tamara added,  
I think that?s probably the biggest challenge. . . When you?re small,  
you?re intimate. But the bigger you get, it?s harder to do that. I think  
we need to really be able to pay attention to that as we continue to grow.  
We need continue to get folks mixed around so we do keep that intimate  
relationship.  
Through researcher observations and participant interviews, several themes 
presented themselves as ways CommunityBankCorp was addressing these challenges, 
especially the concern for cultural maintenance. For example, observations at weekly 
senior leader team meetings noted a balance of time between ?business? task 
 142 
discussion and ?relationship? or cultural discussion. As described previously under 
RQ3, leaders devoted nearly a third of the meetings observed to celebrating and 
recognizing employees evidencing cultural values; additional meeting time covered 
leadership and cultural training as well as discussion of cultural maintenance 
activities.  
 David addressed cultural maintenance concerns. When asked, ?How are you 
going to keep it going, David?? he responded that recently, the company was ?split? 
into six regions, each with a senior leader team member as its regional director. ?If 
it?s just one big ?blob,?? he said, ?I think we?ll have difficult time.?  
 For CommunityBankCorp, addressing future growth challenges will require 
ensuring that hiring and equipping employees keeps pace with organizational 
?spread? through adding new branches. It will also require leaders maintaining the 
same level of care, training, and relationship-building in the future as they did from 
the organization?s start. According to participants, practicing the servant leadership 
style (expressed authentically and transformationally), developing leaders throughout 
the company, ensuring cultural values maintenance through ?right? hiring and 
constant training/reinforcement, and keeping internal communication processes open, 
two-way, and face-to-face will be crucial for CommunityBankCorp?s continued 
success. 
 
 
 
 
 143 
Chapter Five ? Discussion 
Through this study, I explored confluence of internal public relations, 
leadership styles, and organizational culture?specifically, in a spiritually based 
workplace (Wagner-Marsh & Conley, 1999)?in order to better understand their 
influence on leader-employee relationship management. To achieve these ends, I 
conducted a case study using a three-pronged data collection approach that included 
in-depth interviews, participant observation, and internal document analysis. For the 
interviews, I sampled leaders and employees of varying levels across the organization 
(including headquarters as well as remote-location branches). Participant observations 
examined senior leadership and team meetings, training sessions, one-on-one 
meetings, and informal leader-employee interactions. Internal document analysis 
reviewed in-house newsletters, vision and values statements, the corporate website, 
and foundational company publications. Throughout the process, my goal focused on 
discovering how the self-ascribed and employee-ascribed leadership style (for both 
the organization?s top leader and the senior leader team), the organizational culture?s 
characteristics and values (as well as how employees find meaning through them), 
and the company?s internal public relations excellence level (L.A. Grunig et al., 2002) 
combine to influence internal relationship-building processes and management.  
Results indicated that this confluence facilitated strong relationship building 
between employees and organizational leaders as well as between employees across 
the organization. The confluence also promoted intentional leadership development 
among employees, through both specific career goal planning and opportunities for 
honing individual employees? leadership skills. 
 144 
This dissertation is uniquely a public relations study because it highlighted the 
central role of internal communication in fostering effective relationship management 
between all organizational employees, as well as the effect of internal public relations 
and relationship-building practices on organizational unity and employee leadership 
development. However, study results also clearly underscored the roles of leadership 
style and organizational culture in establishing and maintaining internal public 
relations policies and practices. Each of the three areas researched influenced the 
others, and when combined, produced a hybrid environment that nurtured 
organizational unity as well as strong relational and leadership development 
outcomes. As the findings indicated, gaining greater insight into organizational 
relationship management (as well as employee leadership development) requires 
more than separate or distinct explorations of key concepts. Rather, such insights are 
most accurately informed and understood through exploring multiple concept 
convergence to provide a relationship-nurturing, growth-encouraging environment.  
Theoretical Connections to Research Findings 
 Ideally, to draw clearer connections between existing theories and research 
findings, I would present this section in the same order as chapter two?s literature 
review. However, because study results highlighted the founding leader?s significant 
influence on organizational culture and internal public relations as well as the 
resulting hybrid impact on relationship management and employee leadership 
development, I have chosen to outline connections first to leadership literature, then 
to organizational culture and public relations literature (including power control), and 
 145 
finally to relationship management literature. I believe this more accurately reflects 
the organizational realities emerging from the data. 
Leadership style 
 CommunityBankCorp?s founding leader and current CEO espoused and 
practiced a combination of related leadership styles: authentic, principle-centered, 
servant, and transformational. He and the senior leader team prescribed this 
leadership model in their organizational literature, in leadership trainings, and in 
employee interactions.  
 Authentic leadership. CommunityBankCorp leadership (top leader plus senior 
leader team members) demonstrated numerous authentic leader characteristics, 
including positive leader influence characterized by deep self-understanding; 
behavior consistent with original, personal beliefs and convictions; positivity; and 
desire to lead for ego-less reasons (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004; 
Erickson, 1995; Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004; Harter, 2002; Luthans & Avolio, 
2003; Shamir and Eilam, 2005; Terry, 1993). As evidenced through interviews, 
application of this leadership style authentically originated with the founder/top 
leader?s past life experiences and pivotal trigger events such as his religious 
conversion and a clear vision, received at a specific moment in time, to found the 
organization (Gardner et al., 2005). Moreover, the organization?s prescribed and lived 
leadership style illustrated commitment to growth/development in both the leaders 
and their followers, as well as selflessness in understanding the leaders? primary roles 
of valuing and supporting employees (Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004). 
 146 
Principle-centered and servant leadership. Within an authentic leadership 
framework, CommunityBankCorp?s leadership and literature express servant 
leadership based on biblical principles. Data clearly indicated an organizational 
foundation of specific principles that declared expectations for leader and employee 
behavior and interaction (Covey, 1992). Stemming from these principles, leaders 
exhibited a desire to serve others in the workplace (Greenleaf, 1970, 1998), beginning 
with leadership and trickling out to employees at all levels. In addition, leaders 
employed participative management and placed finding meaning in work (i.e., 
?redemption?) above profitability (DePree, 1989; Depree in Lee & Zemke, 1985)?
although the organization?s business success suggests that one was not at the cost of 
the other. In demonstrating servant leadership, CommunityBankCorp?s leaders 
enacted nearly all of DePree?s (1992) and Greenleaf?s (as noted in Spears, 1998) 
theorized characteristics, including, among others, listening, empathy, stewardship, 
integrity, vulnerability (openness), courage in relationships, presence, commitment to 
growth of people, and community-building. Consistent with Block (1993), 
organizational leaders also held each other and their employees accountable by 
looking at their service to others and their commitment to organizational values. In 
addition, organizational leaders intentionally created an organizational culture that 
fostered employee growth, trust, empowerment/autonomy, greater self-worth, and 
value for and responsibility for others (Chapell, 1993; Melrose, 1995). Finally, 
consistent with Fry?s (2003) model of spiritual leadership, CommunityBankCorp 
leaders worked to ensure vision and value congruence that fostered high levels of 
organizational commitment and productivity among employees. 
 147 
Transformational leadership. CommunityBankCorp?s leadership style 
illustrated numerous charismatic and transformational leadership characteristics 
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Bass 1985; Burns, 1978; Conger, 
1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Yukl, 2002). Leaders actively engaged in 
developing their followers into leaders (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Bass 1985; Burns, 
1978). Congruent with Avolio and Gardner (2005), organizational leaders went 
beyond rhetoric, energizing their followers through positive modeling to intentionally 
create and promote specific cultural values and moral perspectives. In addition, 
leaders also consistently used individualized considerations in their leader-follower 
relations through friendly/nurturing behavior, commitment to empowerment, and 
supporting/encouraging followers according to their individual needs (Bass, 1985; 
Block, 1993; Covey, 1992; DePree, 1989; Greenleaf, 1977; Huey, 1994, Kouzes & 
Posner, 1993; Musser, 1997).  
As evidenced from employee responses as well as from leaders? expressed 
desires, employment of transformational leadership in this particular setting 
confirmed previous workplace leadership research regarding organizational 
commitment (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Walumbwa et al., 2004; Walumbwa & 
Lawler, 2003), effectiveness of shared vision/goals (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; 
Cameron & McCollum, 1993; Fairhurst, 1993; Farmer et al., 1998; Haas et al., 1992; 
Peters & Waterman, 1982), effective goal/vision dissemination (Berson & Avolio, 
2004; Romm, 1999), leader-employee relationship strength (Piccolo & Colquitt, 
2006), and employee self-efficacy/cohesiveness and high work performance 
(Kirkpatrick, 1996; Pillai & Williams, 2004; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). The study also 
 148 
confirmed Kark et al.?s (2003) connections between transformational leadership and 
follower motivation, morality, and employee empowerment, and did not lend support 
to the idea that this leadership style fosters employee dependency on leaders.  
Organizational culture  
Confirming Schein?s (1985) assertion, findings demonstrated that 
CommunityBankCorp leadership and culture work interrelatedly, specifically because 
of the founder/top leader?s influence in choosing the senior leader team and defining 
the organization?s cultural vision and values. In particular, organizational leaders 
visibly modeled cultural values consistent with written expectations (Kotter & 
Heskett, 1992) but also reinforced cultural value understanding and adherence 
through training and coaching, hiring/firing practices, and ties to performance reviews 
(Schein, 1985). 
The spiritually based firm. As the data evidenced, CommunityBankCorp?s 
leader founded the organization intentionally to create a firm based on biblical 
principles. Specifically, combining both leadership style and workplace culture, 
McCormick?s (1994) characteristic workplace spirituality themes of compassion and 
selfless service (drawn from Christianity and Hinduism) emerged in this study. 
Results also confirmed Giacalone and Jurkiewicz?s (2003) definition of workplace 
spirituality, noting particularly the way that cultural values promoted participants? 
sense of connectedness and enjoyment as well as higher levels of work satisfaction. 
Moreover, data strongly suggested that CommunityBankCorp was, in fact, a 
spiritually based firm (Conley & Wagner-Marsh, 1998; Wagner-Marsh & Conley, 
1999); the organization aligned with characteristics such as ?honesty with self [in the 
 149 
organizational leader], articulation of the corporation?s spiritually-based philosophy, 
mutual trust and honesty with others, commitment to quality and service, 
commitment to employees, and selection of personnel to match the corporation?s 
spiritually-based philosophy? (Wagner-Marsh & Conley, 1999, p. 292). The only 
deviation was that although the top leader and many senior leader team members 
articulated the ties between biblical principles and the organization?s cultural values 
and hired employees according to cultural fit, they did not require that the cultural fit 
be due to espousing the religious traditions underpinning cultural values. Finally, 
results supported Garcia-Zamor?s (2003) suggestions that spiritually based 
workplaces tend to achieve profitability due to employees? strong connections 
between moral/religious/cultural values, workplace ethics, and job performance.  
Internal public relations  
 As evidenced through research results, CommunityBankCorp practiced 
internal public relations with excellence (L.A. Grunig et al., 2002). Critical to that 
practice was leaders? willingness to share power with employees, both through 
participatory decision-making and through employee leadership development. 
Power-control. The power-control perspective (Berger, 2005; Dozier & L. A. 
Grunig, 1992 ) was interestingly represented at CommunityBankCorp. Although 
organizational leaders held the traditional organizational power in that they possessed 
?the ability to get things done by affecting the perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, 
decisions, statements, and behaviors of others? (Berger & Reber, 2006, p. 5), they 
also established organizational structures, cultural values, and communication 
policies and practices that allowed power to be shared by employees (L. A. Grunig, 
 150 
1992). The leaders seemed less interested in satisfying their own power desires and 
more interested in sharing power in order to more fully develop organizational buy-
in, unity, and leadership among employees. In addition, the Chief Relationship 
Officer worked closely with the founder/CEO as part of the senior leader team, 
underscoring Plowman?s (1998) and O?Neil?s (2003) previous studies regarding top 
management?s effect on organizational public relations. This commitment from 
CommunityBankCorp?s leadership, along with public relations access to the dominant 
coalition, seemed to negate potential power imbalances and afforded organizational 
public relations practitioners the power necessary to influence company decisions 
(Berger, 2007; Berger & Reber, 2006; Holtzhausen, 2000, 2007; Holtzhausen & 
Voto, 2002; Lauzen, 1992). In addition, although the public relations practitioners 
clearly exerted influence, the company structure, culture, and communication policies 
and practices seemed to allow voice for employees (Karlberg, 1996), without 
requiring the intercession of those in public relations positions. Thus far in the 
organization?s history, shared power and opportunities for internal public members? 
voices to be heard have made dissensus and activism (Holtzhausen, 2007; 
Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002) as well as omega tactics (Berger & Reber, 2006) 
unnecessary. In addition, although participant observations and in-depth interviews 
did not reveal the existence of multiple power coalitions across the organization 
(Berger, 2005, 2007), employees and employee groups clearly hold power and 
influence?by organizational design. 
 Excellence. In addition to access to the dominant coalition, 
CommunityBankCorp?s public relations worldview and practices seemed to align 
 151 
with other characteristics found in the excellence study (Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. 
Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). These included a two-way symmetrical 
communication worldview (Dozier et al., 1995; Murphy, 1991, Spicer, 1997), 
organizational leaders? non-authoritarian leadership style, commitment to 
symmetrical internal communication (as evidenced in part by their close interpersonal 
relationships with their employees), shared power and collaborative decision-making 
(empowerment) that fosters teamwork and values employees as people, organic 
structure, and greater employee satisfaction resulting from internal public relations 
excellence. The findings also supported Hatch?s (1997) assertion that participative 
culture fosters lateral in addition to top-down communication, and underscored Asif 
and Sargeant?s (2000) idea of employee-leader communication symmetry as well as 
Dolphin?s (2005) focus on internal communication as employee-leader relationship 
building rather than information dissemination.  
Internal public relations. Beyond the excellence study comparisons, contrary 
to Wright?s (1995) suggestion, CommunityBankCorp public relations practices relied 
very little on journalistic functions, focusing instead on face-to-face communication 
to build stronger internal relationships. In addition, findings supported the idea that 
positive communication facilitates formation of trusting employee-leader 
relationships (Jo & Shim, 2005). This study also aligned with my own previous 
research (McCown, 2005a, 2006) to affirm transformational leadership (which, by 
nature is also authentic) employed with individualized consideration strategies as 
enhancing internal public relations excellence, employee communication, relationship 
building, and leader-employee trust. The study suggests that within the context of a 
 152 
spiritually based firm, the principle-centered and servant leadership styles (also 
authentic), when coupled with a desire to transform, particularly enhanced internal 
public relations excellence. 
Workplace communication climate. Creating a climate of ?right,? ?just,? and 
?fair? treatment, CommunityBankCorp enhanced employee communication and 
employee-leader trust, supporting Ruppel and Harrington?s (2000) previous research. 
In addition, although not specifically tested in this study, it could be inferred from the 
organization?s rapid growth in a short period of time that CommunityBankCorp?s 
open, positive communication climate has increased employee identification with the 
company, leading to business success and strengthened organizational reputation 
(Smidts, Pruyn, & vanRiel, 2001). The organization also exhibited factors identified 
by Young and Post (1993) indicating effective employee communication, especially 
its face-to-face communication emphasis and its understanding of employee 
communications as process over product. 
Although previous research by DeBussy et al. (2003) advocated use of new 
media?particularly company intranets?as enhancing internal communication, 
CommunityBankCorp demonstrated preference for limiting the use of such 
technology to information-sharing only. Rather, face-to-face communication seemed 
more critical for successful internal relationship-building.  
Leader-follower communication. Results indicated that 
CommunityBankCorp?s leader-follower communication supported Therkelsen and 
Fiebich?s (2003) assertion regarding the primacy of the employee public and the 
critical use of frontline supervisors. In particular, the organization created shared 
 153 
vision and goals through employee communication practices (Cameron & McCollum, 
1993; Fairhurst, 1993; Farmer et al., 1998; Haas et al., 1992; Peters & Waterman, 
1982), with emphasis on the senior leader team members continuing to deliver the 
organizational vision consistently through word and deed (Romm, 1999). However, 
although CommunityBankCorp?s vision communication did trickle out across the 
organization, employees were not constrained in their access to upper-level leaders 
(particularly due to both flat organizational structure as well as leadership style), thus 
suggesting that unlike Fairhurst?s (1993) study, all employees at all levels are 
responsible for daily vision implementation and sustenance; relatedly, 
CommunityBankCorp CEO and the senior leader team members felt strongly that 
their internal communication policies were effective due largely to their interpersonal 
interactions with employees throughout the organization, yielding results supporting 
several previous studies (Cameron & McCollum, 1993; Kim, 2002; Sagie, 1996; 
Sobo & Sadler, 2002). These results also opposed Pincus et al. (1991), who suggested 
that CEOs found their direct communication with employees below middle-
management level to be limited, therefore making internal communication policies 
less effective. 
Relationship management. As results suggest, CommunityBankCorp?s 
internal public relations was framed around relationship building as opposed to 
information dissemination, persuasion, or manipulation, following a current public 
relations paradigm noted by numerous scholars (Ehling, 1992; Ferguson, 1984; 
Flynn, 2006; J. E. Grunig, 1992; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000a). The organization?s 
employment of two-way, symmetrical public relations added organizational value 
 154 
through building mutually beneficial relationships between leadership and the internal 
public (Broom et al., 1997, 2000; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Bruning & 
Ledingham, 2000; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, 2000b; Ledingham et al., 1999). 
Treating its internal public as its most strategic constituency, CommunityBankCorp 
demonstrated tacit understanding of J. E. Grunig and Huang?s (2002) assertions that 
relationships should be strengthened in internal as well as external publics. With 
regard to Hon and J. E. Grunig?s (1999) relationship antecedents, findings revealed 
strong presence of control mutuality (as evidenced through empowerment and 
participatory decision-making), trust (between leaders and employees as well as 
across the organization), satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Aligning with 
Ledingham (2001), CommunityBankCorp strengthened relationships between the 
organization and its internal public through identifying commonalities, particularly 
the company?s cultural values. Similar to Bruning?s (2002) study, the company?s high 
employee retention rate suggested a link between relationship building and 
organizational commitment.  
Employee leadership development 
 The confluence of specific leadership styles, spiritually based organizational 
culture, and excellent internal public relations encouraged employee leadership 
development at CommunityBankCorp, as findings clearly revealed. Through 
authentic, transformational, servant, and principle-centered leader influence and 
encouraged by positive, biblical cultural values as well as open, symmetrical 
communication, employees themselves were inspired to authentic development 
(Gardner et al., 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005). This process of discovering themselves 
 155 
and their own potential, coupled with intentional strategies for honing leadership 
skills and regular leadership training sessions, led to increased employee leadership 
development. As expressed through the findings, CommunityBankCorp leaders 
manifested a strong sense of responsibility to ?grow? their employees and prepare 
them to be the organization?s future leadership. 
Theoretical Development and Interpretations 
Theoretical Interpretation 
 Study results seemed to fit well with previous normative assumptions 
regarding the interplay of leadership style and internal public relations excellence 
(Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002); in particular, 
CommunityBankCorp?s non-authoritarian leadership fostered public relations access 
to the dominant coalition, a two-way symmetrical communication worldview, 
commitment to symmetrical internal communication, shared power and collaborative 
decision-making, and organic structure. However, I believe this study?s findings went 
beyond simply supporting enactment of a non-authoritarian leadership style; instead, 
results demonstrated that the founder/leader?s vision and faith drove employment of 
authentic leadership style (specifically through transformational, servant, and 
principle-centered leadership strategies) characterized by a commitment to excellent 
internal communication/public relations. The top leader and senior leader team 
members? use of this specific leadership style promoted open, two-way symmetrical 
communication between leaders and employees. 
 In addition, the founder/leader?s vision and faith fostered establishment of a 
spiritually based workplace culture involving both constant communication and 
 156 
clearly defined behavioral expectations based on biblical principles and shared 
values. Although no expectations existed for employees to actually share the leader?s 
faith tradition, findings indicated that employees agreed with the cultural values 
stemming from spiritual principles, and both appreciated and wanted to meet the 
ensuing behavioral expectations. I believe in this case, the leader?s spirituality as well 
as his way of communicating it?matter-of-factly and non-coercively?demonstrated 
a value and respect for his employees; in this way, he cultivated and advanced open, 
two-way symmetrical communication and participative decision-making leading to 
internal public relations excellence. 
 Interestingly, results indicated that participants had little (or no) desire for 
major organizational changes. This revelation contrasts with the excellence study?s 
(Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002) assertion that 
turbulent environment and change bring about greater public relations excellence. 
Perhaps such a contrast exists because, as shared in chapter 4, CommunityBankCorp 
was created due to the founder?s own sense of frustration when his applied 
?turbulence? did not bring about change or excellence in his previous workplace. In 
addition, numerous study participants expressed dissatisfaction with their previous 
workplace situations, citing a desire to be part of an organization striving to ?do 
things right,? with excellence. Another reason for the contrast with previous 
assumptions regarding the role of turbulence might be because when an organization 
embodies a high degree of public relations excellence, employees find little reason for 
dissatisfaction, thereby eliminating the need for them to create turbulence or activist 
situations to improve leader-employee communication and relationships. According 
 157 
to findings, participants expressed greatest concern over whether the organization 
would be able to maintain its current state of excellence as it grew larger. I believe 
these results suggest not so much a desire for maintaining status quo as a desire not to 
?lose? that which employees feel most strongly about: relational strength, 
organizational unity, and the opportunity for their own empowerment and leadership 
development. As the study illustrates, these three outcomes resulted directly from the 
confluence of authentic leadership style (expressed through transformational, servant, 
and principle-centered strategies), a spiritually based workplace culture, and internal 
public relations excellence. 
 Because I also share a similar faith tradition and values/principles with 
CommunityBankCorp?s leadership and culture, I was keenly aware of the potential 
for personal bias to produce skewed or misinterpreted study results. Throughout the 
research process, I worked diligently to write reflexive memos and insert observer 
comments to bracket this bias as effectively as possible. Yet I cannot deny a certain 
level of satisfaction with the findings. Discovering that spirituality not only ?matters? 
in this organization?s success?at one level it actually drives it?made me feel 
somewhat validated in my own faith and beliefs about the values I find foundational 
to public relations excellence. Does this undermine my study?s validity?  I do not 
believe so. In addition to constant reflexivity, I employed numerous strategies 
designed to heighten validity, including triangulation in data collection, sound 
craftsmanship in field research and data analysis, lengthy fieldwork duration, attempts 
toward saturation, negative case analysis, and post-interpretation communication with 
participants through a member check, which upheld the study?s accuracy (Glaser & 
 158 
Strauss, 1967; Kvale, 1995; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994; H. J. 
Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995; Wolcott, 2001). After the third of 21 interviews, when 
?three in a row? indicated an extremely high level of participant satisfaction, I even 
began wrapping up each participant interview with the question, ?Okay, this sounds 
too good to be true. Is it really for real??  Participants eagerly responded that although 
of course no organization is perfect, CommunityBankCorp comes close, and their 
positive experiences were, indeed, quite real. Finally, I was further reassured of the 
study?s accuracy and validity by the organization?s diversity in terms of its 
employees? faith traditions (and no faith tradition)?even among senior leader team 
members?as well as participants? insistence that leadership?s behavioral and values 
expectations did not include espousing a particular ?flavor? of spirituality. 
Model development for internal relationship building 
Based on the data and resulting interpretations, I propose a working model to 
describe my findings and provide a basis from which to move forward with future 
research and theory development, to better understand the interplay of leadership 
style, organizational culture, and internal public relations and their confluence?s 
resulting outcomes. Although this model provides a helpful visual description of my 
case study organization?s situational realities, and, through testing and refinement, 
may eventually depict normative theory for internal relationship building, I recognize 
its limitation; as a two-dimensional, linear drawing, it cannot completely describe the 
complex nature of the research phenomena?s interactions and confluences. 
Nonetheless, I believe it provides a useful springboard for future testing and theory 
 159 
refinement regarding internal relationship building. Several theoretical propositions 
explain components of the proposed model: 
1.  An organizational leader?s faith and vision can drive leadership style, 
organizational culture, and internal public relations processes. 
2.  Leadership style, organizational culture, and internal public relations processes 
influence and intersect with each other to create specific cultural values, leader-
employee interaction characteristics, and communication values. 
3. The confluence of leadership style, organizational culture, and internal public 
relations processes forms the basis for relationship-building and employee leadership 
development outcomes. 
4.  Relationship strength, organizational unity, and intentional leadership 
development perpetuate the organization?s espoused leadership style/model, cultural 
values, and internal public relations excellence, thus serving as the keys to 
organizational success. 
 Applying these theoretical propositions, the proposed model (see Figure 1) 
depicts the organization researched in my study. Based on study findings, the 
organizational founder?s/top leader?s faith and vision drives the entire organization, 
providing a strong foundation from which to establish a specific leadership style?
authentic, transformational, principle-centered, and servant; organizational culture?
spiritually based; and excellent internal public relations processes and practices?
two-way symmetrical. These three elements, represented by the three ovals, exert 
influence on each other; as participants noted, changing any one of these elements 
(i.e., enacting a different leadership style or constraining open, two-way internal 
 160 
Founder/Leader Faith & Vision 
Authentic/Transformational/ 
Servant/Principle-centered 
Leader Style 
 
Spiritually Based 
Organizational Culture 
Excellent Internal Public 
Relations Practices 
Intentional, Positive, People-Driven 
Cultural Maintenance, 
Interpersonal Communication, &  
Employee Empowerment/Growth 
Figure 1. McCown?s proposed model of internal relationship building in 
CommunityBankCorp. 
Relational Strength 
Organizational Unity 
Employee Leadership Development 
 
 161 
 communication) would greatly affect the other components? ability to exist in their 
current state. Moreover, these three elements work consistently and cooperatively 
with each other to foster intentional, positive, and people-driven cultural 
maintenance, interpersonal communication, and employee empowerment/growth. 
Specifically, cultural maintenance elements, as noted by participants, encompass 
strategies such as practices of hiring/firing according to cultural fit, cultural 
storytelling, and intentional cultural training. In addition, interpersonal 
communication is characterized by frequent, open, timely, and two-way interactions 
between leaders and employees?evidence of internal public relations excellence. 
Finally, employee empowerment/growth stems from intentional leadership training, 
participatory idea generation and decision-making, and control mutuality. 
The organizational realities depicted in the oval resulting from the confluence 
of leadership style, organizational culture, and internal public relations practices 
combine to produce a hybrid environment which nurtures relational strength, 
organizational unity, and employee leadership development. As the data revealed, 
relational strength grows out of trust, control mutuality, organizational commitment 
and loyalty, motivation/productivity, and job satisfaction/enjoyment. In addition, 
organizational unity is demonstrated through participants? high dedication to 
teamwork and commitment to ?living out? the organization?s mission, vision, and 
values. Finally, employee leadership development clearly occurs through specific 
leadership training and coaching sessions, leader modeling, and intentional career 
path planning. In turn, these three outcomes feed back into the environment to 
 162 
perpetuate the organization?s defining characteristics, ultimately leading to 
organizational unity and success.  
Although I believe this model can serve as a basis for further theoretical 
development to explain internal public relationship-building, it very likely will 
undergo revisions as further testing occurs. For example, upon reflection, I may 
determine that due to the nature of servant leadership, the model could actually be 
reversed from top to bottom, more accurately depicting the founding leader?s vision 
and faith as the foundational element out of which the rest of the organization grows. 
In addition, to more effectively show the interplay of leadership style, organizational 
culture, and internal public relations, double-sided arrows connecting the ovals?or 
even overlapping oval?might prove useful. Another revision may heighten the 
importance of assessment within the organization; although within chapter 4?s 
findings I noted performance reviews (which include evaluation of employees? 
adherence to cultural values) under the umbrella of cultural maintenance, their 
importance may warrant granting assessment a specific mention within the model. 
Likewise, because participants noted that listening plays such a large role in 
achieving internal public relations excellence, it, too, may warrant a specific mention 
within the model.  
Implications on Theory and Practice 
Theoretical Implications 
 Although many studies have examined dyadic relationships of leadership style 
influence on public relations and on organizational culture, or organizational culture 
influence on public relations, no research was found that explored the confluence of 
 163 
all three and their resulting effect on a spiritually based organization?s ability to 
achieve strong internal relationships. My findings enhance understanding of how 
these phenomena come together to form a hybrid context in which relationship 
building becomes the key to organizational success. 
 Previous studies (i.e., Dozier et al., 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et 
al., 2002) suggested that authoritarian leadership style was not conducive to internal 
public relations excellence, and, by inference, to strong employee-leader relationship 
building. Few studies, however, (exceptions include my own as well as Aldoory & 
Toth, 2004, which was limited to leader preferences identified by public relations 
practitioners rather than all organization employees) attempted to identify a 
leadership style or styles that would actually strengthen public relations excellence 
and relationship-building. My findings indicate that authentic leadership style as 
enacted through transformational, principle-centered, and servant leadership 
strategies positively influenced internal public relations and led to strong relationship-
building, not only between leaders and employees but also among employees at 
various levels across the organization. Key to this success was the leadership?s value 
for employees as people as well as a desire to serve them and empower them to do 
their jobs and reach their potential. Despite assertions that organic, open, participatory 
cultures are most conducive to excellent internal public relations (Dozier et al., 1995; 
J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002), no studies examined the influence of a 
spiritually based organizational culture on employee communication. This study 
indicated that commitment to specific principles (in this case, biblically based 
principles) that elevate valuing people through respectful, open communication has a 
 164 
profound influence on the organization?s ability to practice excellent internal public 
relations. Overall, the combination of authentic, transformational, principle-centered, 
and servant leadership; open, respectful, participatory culture based on biblical 
principles; and excellent internal public relations resulted in a hybrid context that 
fostered strong relationship-building processes and outcomes as well as a 
commitment to employee leadership development.  
 My proposed model for internal public relationship-building further offers 
scholars a theoretical understanding of how the faith and vision of an organization?s 
founder/top leader can drive the enactment of particular leadership styles, 
organizational culture, and internal communication. Through intentionality, 
positivity, and value for people in maintaining culture, interpersonal communication, 
and employee empowerment/growth, organizational leadership?working with those 
responsible for internal public relations?can build strong relationships, promote 
organizational unity, and develop employees as leaders to create a self-perpetuating 
cycle of increased organizational success.  
Implications on Practice 
This study poses several implications for applied practice of internal public 
relations. As the theoretical implications propose, these applications bring together 
leadership style, organizational culture, and internal communication to enhance 
relationship building, organizational unity, and employee leadership development. 
First, organizational leaders can and perhaps should allow their faith and 
vision to contribute meaningfully to the types of leadership style, organizational 
culture, and internal communication practices promoted within an organization. As 
 165 
CommunityBankCorp has demonstrated, spirituality can provide a strong foundation 
for shared organizational values and behavioral expectations/principles. However, 
leaders must be careful to maintain respect for employees from other faith traditions 
or no faith traditions in order to foster employee buy-in to those values, expectations, 
and principles. 
Second, enactment of authentic, transformational, principle-centered, and 
servant leadership styles coupled with open, two-way symmetrical internal 
communication within a spiritually based organizational culture should, according to 
the model, produce positive, people-driven cultural values, interpersonal 
communication, and employee empowerment/growth. In praxis, leaders and public 
relations professionals must be consistent, intentional, and unified in maintaining 
these specific leadership styles, cultural values, and excellent communication 
processes. Commitment to constant training and reinforcement will be required across 
all organizational levels. In addition, leaders must employ careful hiring and firing 
practices based on foundational cultural values, behavioral expectations, and 
principles. In short, for the model to work, the organization must ?practice what it 
preaches.? 
Finally, the resulting outcomes of relational strength, organizational unity, and 
employee leadership development will feed back into maintaining organizational 
success over time. Special attention must be paid to encouraging these outcomes from 
the top leadership trickling out through mid-level leaders to employees at all levels. 
Again, intentional and consistent organization-wide training, modeling, and 
mentoring will help ensure a perpetuating cycle of success. As leaders model positive, 
 166 
respectful relationship building and as appropriate hiring/firing practices (with careful 
attention to cultural fit) are employed, employees at all levels should begin to emulate 
this behavior. Public relations professionals, through facilitating face-to-face 
communication as well as through cultural maintenance strategies such as 
vision/values communication, storytelling, and relationship-building informally and 
through activities, should help to facilitate this perpetuating cycle as well. 
Methodological Limitations and Future Research 
Sampling Limitations  
 Although I attempted to achieve purposive and maximum variation sampling 
(Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Potter, 1996; H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 1995) in this study, 
there is a possibility that I was not as successful as I desired. My encultured informant 
initially provided me with contacts for three senior leader team members. In turn, I 
snowball sampled (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Potter, 1996; H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin, 
1995), asking participants for names of employees at all levels who might be willing 
to meet with me and who might be able offer a variety of perspectives on the 
organization due to their geographic location, their position, or their level of 
organizational engagement. Potentially, participants may have provided contacts for 
people most like themselves in perspective. In addition, due to the ?flatness? of the 
organization, many participants actually attended senior leader team meetings or were 
considered ?mid-level.? Ideally, I should have included a greater percentage of entry-
level or branch employees to ensure maximum variation; this under-representation 
may be mildly problematic. It was also difficult to discern whether I was achieving 
theoretical sampling, because, based on their responses to my questions, participants 
 167 
at all levels appeared capable of addressing the range of themes emerging as the study 
progressed. Additionally, although I sampled until I seemed to be approaching 
saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and until I had considered all emerging negative 
cases and rival interpretations (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin , 2003), time 
restrictions prevented me from sampling further. Nonetheless, due to the 
overwhelmingly unified organizational culture and the extremely high degree of 
employee loyalty and commitment, I feel fairly confident that had I conducted further 
interviews, little or no new interpretations would have emerged.  
Methodological Limitations  
 I conducted all of my interviews face-to-face, and at participants? requests 
several occurred on-site rather than in a more confidential or neutral setting. Not 
wanting to lose potential participants due to inconvenience for them, I agreed, 
overcoming the potential for increased risk by holding the interviews in private 
offices or closed conference rooms and by obtaining extra informed consent 
regarding confidentiality (see Appendix C). Despite this limitation, I feel fairly 
confident that participants were not hindered in their ability to speak freely, as 
evidenced by their willingness to share both positive and negative (though rare) 
information. The other procedural limitation occurred when holding some interviews 
in restaurants and coffee shops. At times, loud music and other customers distracted 
both researcher and participant; however, I tried to overcome these distractions where 
possible by choosing tables or seating in remote, quieter locations, and by indicating, 
verbally and nonverbally, my interest and engagement. Also, I only conducted one 
interview with each participant. Having multiple interviews might have revealed 
 168 
different perspectives and increased insight into their specific experiences. However, 
I believe I overcame this limitation with the thoroughness and strength of my 
interview protocol combined with conducting several follow-up contacts to clarify or 
probe more deeply on particular questions.  
Most importantly, I overcame procedural limitations by triangulating my 
research through researcher observations and internal document analysis. This 
produced richer research results and increased internal validity (Brannen, 1991). 
Directions for future research 
This current research leads me in several directions for future study 
connecting the fields of internal public relations, leadership, and organizational 
culture. I propose conducting additional research to test my cultural model?s staying 
power within the original organization as well as testing its potential applicability in 
other organizations with similar and dissimilar cultures.  
 Model staying power within the original organization. As a young 
organization, CommunityBankCorp provides a unique research context. Its founder 
and most of its key senior leader team members have been with the company from the 
start. These leaders, brought on not only for their professional expertise but perhaps 
more importantly for their shared vision and values, have ?lived out? their 
commitment to these values daily in front of their employees. In addition, with the 
organization?s relatively small size, maintaining face-to-face communication?while 
not without challenges?is relatively easy. As the organization continues to grow, 
however, it may be more difficult to hire culturally fit new leaders to serve additional 
branches and remote locations, due to little or no previous connection to the founder 
 169 
and senior leader team. In addition, continued face-to-face internal public relations 
strategies will obviously become more of a challenge with organizational growth, as 
many study participants noted. Thus, conducting follow-up studies in this 
organization at regular intervals (i.e., two, five, seven, and ten years out, or even 
further into the future) will help to test the model?s staying power within its original 
organization. It may also be useful to test the model with quantitative measures and 
by collaborating with other researchers to further triangulate and probe more deeply 
to understand how the hybrid confluence of leadership style, organizational culture, 
and internal public relations contributes to employee-leader relationship building. 
 Applicability in other organizations. Obviously, this model will only become 
a theory if it holds true through widespread testing in a variety of organizations. First, 
I would advocate testing the model in organizations led by leaders supposed to 
espouse authentic, transformational, servant, and principle-centered leader styles. In 
addition, the organizations should be those adhering to similar cultural values, 
particularly those identified as spiritually based firms. Testing for the presence of 
excellent internal public relations and its ability to promote strong relationship 
building within the context of similar leadership style and organizational culture, this 
research would determine the model?s applicability to other similar organizations. If 
applicability is found, testing the model in dissimilar organizations to determine 
?universality? would provide still greater understanding of the topic.  
Conclusion 
 The goals of this study included exploring the confluence of particular 
leadership styles, excellent internal public relations practices, and leader-employee 
 170 
relationship management and relational outcomes within the context of a particular 
type of organizational culture, the spiritually based firm (Wagner-Marsh and Conley, 
1999). Through a qualitative organizational case study, I conducted in-depth 
interviews, participant observations, and internal document analysis; data yielded 
several resulting theme patterns addressing the four research questions. 
 The organization?s founder/top leader as well as the senior leader team 
members demonstrated authentic, transformational leadership style practiced via 
servant and principle-centered leader model employment. In addition, data clearly 
identified the organizational culture as a spiritually based firm. Based on leader style 
and ensuing cultural values, internal public relations practices exhibited excellence 
characteristics including two-way symmetrical communication, which fostered strong 
leader-employee relationship building evidenced by control mutuality, trust, 
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Additional outcomes of the confluence 
studied included organizational unity and strong leader commitment to employee 
leadership growth and development. 
 This study offered several specific contributions to the current body of public 
relations scholarship. First, this study was the first to examine in-depth the confluence 
of these three research streams, extending understanding of how specific leadership 
styles, organizational cultures, and internal public relations practices overlap and 
influence each other, as well as revealing their potential to build strong leader-
employee relationships, foster organizational unity, and facilitate employee leadership 
development. It also explored the role of spirituality in fostering internal public 
 171 
relations excellence as well as relationship building, another previously unexplored 
area in public relationship scholarship.  
Due to its unique context and combination of research streams as well as the 
resulting model, this study is theoretically and descriptively rich, adding to the 
understanding of internal relationship management found in mainstream public 
relations research. For too long, employees have been passed over as a critically 
valuable public and a crucial research topic; yet without them?and more 
importantly, without greater understanding of how to best build relationships between 
them and organizational leaders?businesses would experience constraint in their 
ability to practice both internal and external public relations with excellence. 
Ultimately, I believe this dissertation?s most important scholarly contribution is its 
focused attention on one organization?s exemplary combination of specific leadership 
styles, organizational culture, and internal public relations practices that give voice to 
its employees, clearly identifying internal organizational communication as critical 
for effective future public relations practice.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 172 
Appendix A 
 
Sample E-mail or Telephone Script for Interview Request 
 
Date 
 
Dear Name: 
 
I am a doctoral student studying communication and public relations at the University 
of Maryland. I am interested in studying the role of communication and workplace 
culture in leader-employee interactions in the workplace. This interest has grown out 
of my own experiences as a public relations professional and educator for fifteen 
years. 
 
I have received permission from your organization to conduct interviews with 
employees to try to better understand your organization?s leader, workplace culture 
and communication interactions between the leader and employees. I am hoping you 
might be willing to share your thoughts and experiences with me for this project; your 
insights will help me explore this topic in greater depth. Your participation is 
completely voluntary, and you will not be penalized in any way for declining to 
participate. If you do choose to participate, your discussion with me will remain 
confidential and your name will never be used in any reporting of findings. 
 
 173 
I will be conducting the interviews between September and November 2007.  Ideally, 
I?d need about an hour, and the interview could take place at work, in your home, or 
at another convenient location. Would you be willing to see me?  I?d like to contact 
you within the next week to set up a time for us to meet together. 
 
If you have any questions about this project or about me, please feel free to give me a 
call at (717) 502-8888 or e-mail me at nancewrite@gmail.com.  Thank you very 
much for your consideration. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
 
Nance McCown 
Ph.D. Student, Department of Communication 
University of Maryland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 174 
Appendix B 
 
 
 
 175 
 
 
 
 
 176 
Appendix C 
On-site Informed Consent Document 
 
The Roles of Internal Public Relations, Leadership Style, and Workplace 
Spirituality in Building Leader-Employee Relationships and Facilitating 
Relational Outcomes: A Cultural Model 
 
A Research Project by 
Nance McCown 
Ph.D. Candidate 
University of Maryland, College Park 
 
 
Interview Risk Statement of Understanding 
 
 
 
 
 
I, _________________________________________, prefer to participate in an 
interview taking place in my workplace. Having read the University of Maryland 
IRB-approved consent form, I understand that participating in an interview at my 
workplace may present minimal risk to me with regard to confidentiality. 
 
 
 
 
____________________________ ______________________________________ 
  Date     Signature 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 177 
Appendix D 
Leader Interview Protocol 
 
Before we begin our conversation, can I get your permission to audiotape the 
interview, just so I can gather details later? 
(If no), Okay, I understand.  Let?s get started with the interview. . . 
(If yes), Great!  Let?s get started. 
 
(Grand Tour) 
As you know, I?m exploring leadership and employee interactions and 
communication at your organization. You?ve been a leader in previous organizations 
before starting this one, developing and honing your business philosophies and 
leadership skills for some time. Let?s talk first about how and why you started this 
business. 
1. How did you begin this particular organization? 
2. With many other similar organizations in existence, what made you decide to 
start this one? 
Probe:  What makes this organization different from other similar organizations? 
 
 (Related to RQ1:  What leadership style is exhibited in the organization?s top 
leader (as self-ascribed and as ascribed by organizational employees)?)   
Next, let?s discuss leadership characteristics. 
3. How do you define leadership? 
 178 
Probe:  Responsibilities? 
 
4. What do you think characterizes a good leader? 
Probe:  Skills, traits, interactions? 
 
(Related to RQ2: How does that particular leadership style influence the 
organization?s workplace culture?) 
Next, let?s talk about workplace culture. 
5.   How would you describe this organization?s workplace culture? 
Probe:  Climate?  Atmosphere? 
 
6. What business philosophies or personal values serve as the foundation for this 
organization?s culture? 
Probe:  Spiritual? Work ethics? 
 
(Related to RQ3: How does that leadership style influence internal public 
relations (employee communication) practices?) 
Now let?s turn our conversation to communication in the workplace, particularly 
between you as a leader and your employees. 
7. What does it mean for leaders to be effective communicators? 
 
8. How do you as a leader communication with employees? 
Probe:  Institution-wide, small group, individually? 
 179 
Probe:  Channels?  (memos, internet, telephone, face-to-face, newsletter, other?) 
 
9. What communication strategies do you implement to influence or encourage 
those in management or leadership positions under you? 
Probe:  Modeling?  Policy-making? 
 
10. How do you think you?re doing as a leader trying to communicate effectively 
with employees? 
 
11. How, specifically, do you articulate (communicate, discuss, present) the 
organization?s mission or vision to employees? 
 
(Related to RQ4a: How does the confluence of this particular leadership style, 
the organization?s internal public relations practices, and workplace culture 
facilitate leader-employee relationship building?) 
Next, I?d like us to explore how your leadership style, the organization?s 
communication practices, and workplace culture affect the way you build 
relationships with your employees. 
12. How do you think employees feel about your leadership style, organizational 
communication, and the workplace culture? 
Probe: Personally?  About their job productivity or how they feel about their jobs 
in any way? 
 
 180 
13.  How would you describe trust between employees and organizational 
leadership? 
 
14. How would you describe employee commitment to this organization? 
 
15. How would you describe employee perceptions of their own empowerment or 
control in this organization? 
 
16. How would you describe the level of openness in employees at this 
organization? 
 
(Related to RQ4b: What are the resulting outcomes of leader-employee 
relationship building?) 
Now let?s discuss ways that your leadership style, the organizational communication, 
and workplace culture affect employees in their own growth and development. 
 
17. As you think about the interactions and communication you?ve had with 
employees, both individually and in larger groups, how do you think they 
have affected the way employees do their jobs? Or, how would you LIKE 
them to influence employee job performance? 
Probe: How do these interactions motivate employees? 
Probe:  How do these interactions empower or enable employees to do their jobs? 
 181 
Probe:  How do these interactions motivate employees with regard to the 
organization?s mission or vision? 
Probe:  How do these interactions make employees feel as part of the 
organizational community? 
 
18. How have these interactions and communication influenced employee growth 
as individuals? 
Probe:  How do you create a supportive climate for employees personally? 
Probe: How do your interactions with employees help meet their individual 
needs? 
Probe: How do your interactions with employees encourage them to reach their 
potential? 
Probe: How have you encouraged employees to grow and change as a result of 
their interactions and communication with you?  
 
19.  How do you empower employees to grow as leaders in the workplace? 
 
That?s all the formal questions I have for our interview, but is there anything you 
would like to add at this point?  What should I have asked about that I didn?t? 
 
Thank you very much for agreeing to be interviewed.  May I have a phone number or 
e-mail from you, just in case I need to clarify something from the interview or ask a 
follow-up question? 
 182 
 
And if you would like a copy of our final report, let me know, and I?ll take your 
address so we can send one to you. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 183 
 
Appendix E 
Employee Interview Protocol 
 
Before we begin our conversation, can I get your permission to audiotape the 
interview, just so I can gather details later? 
(If no), Okay, I understand.  Let?s get started with the interview. . . 
(If yes), Great!  Let?s get started. 
 
(Grand Tour) 
As you know, I?m exploring leadership and employee interactions and 
communication at your organization. But before we get into those questions, I?d like 
to know a little bit more about you. 
1.  How did you come to work in this particular organization? 
2.  What are your particular job responsibilities here? 
 
 (Related to RQ1:  What leadership style is exhibited in the organization?s top 
leader (as self-ascribed and as ascribed by organizational employees)?)   
Next, let?s discuss this organization?s leadership. 
3. How do you define leadership? 
Probe:  Responsibilities? 
 
4. What do you think characterizes a good leader? 
 184 
Probe:  Skills, traits, interactions? 
 
(Related to RQ2: How does that particular leadership style influence the 
organization?s workplace culture?) 
Next, let?s talk about the workplace culture here. 
5.   How would you describe this organization?s workplace culture? 
Probe:  Climate?  Atmosphere? 
Probe:  Open?  Closed? Supportive?  Empowering?  Stifling?  Rigid? 
 
6.  What business philosophies or values do you think serve as the foundation for 
this organization?s culture? 
Probe:  Spirituality? Work ethics? 
Probe:  To what do you attribute those values?  (Organizational mission? Other 
employees? Leader?) 
 
(Related to RQ3: How does that leadership style influence internal public 
relations (employee communication) practices?) 
Now let?s turn our conversation to communication in the workplace, particularly 
between your leader and you as an employee. 
7. What does it mean for leaders to be effective communicators? 
 
8. How does your leader communicate with employees? 
Probe:  Institution-wide, small group, individually? 
 185 
Probe:  Channels?  (memos, internet, telephone, face-to-face, newsletter, other?) 
 
 
9. What does your leader communicate about with you? 
Probe:  Policies, tasks, vision/mission, other? 
 
10. How, specifically, does your leader articulate (communicate, discuss, present) 
the organization?s mission or vision to employees? 
 
11. How do you think your leader is doing in trying communicate effectively with 
employees? 
 
(Related to RQ4a: How does the confluence of this particular leadership style, 
the organization?s internal public relations practices, and workplace culture 
facilitate leader-employee relationship building?) 
Next, I?d like us to explore how your leader?s style, the organization?s 
communication practices, and workplace culture affect the way you build 
relationships with your leader. 
12. How do you feel about your leader?s style, organizational communication, and 
the workplace culture? 
Probe: Personally?  About how it affects your job productivity or how you feel 
about your job in any way? 
 
 186 
13. How would you describe trust between employees and organizational 
leadership? 
Probe:  Your own trust?  How well others trust? 
 
14. How would you describe employee commitment to this organization? 
Probe:  Your own commitment?  The commitment of others? 
 
15. How would you describe employee perceptions of their own empowerment or 
control in this organization? 
Probe:  Your own empowerment?  Empowerment of others? 
 
16. How would you describe the level of openness in employees at this 
organization? 
Probe:  Your own openness?  Openness of others? 
 
(Related to RQ4b: What are the resulting outcomes of leader-employee 
relationship building?) 
Now let?s discuss ways that your leader?s style, the organizational communication, 
and workplace culture affect employees in their own growth and development. 
 
17. As you think about the interactions and communication you?ve had with your 
leader, both individually and in larger groups, how do you think they have 
affected the way you do their jobs?  
 187 
Probe: How do these interactions motivate you? 
Probe: How do these interactions empower or enable you to do your jobs? 
Probe:  How do these interactions motivate you with regard to the organization?s 
mission or vision? 
Probe:  How do these interactions make you feel as part of the organizational 
community? 
 
18. How have these interactions and communication influenced your growth as an 
individual? 
Probe: How do you feel your leader supports you personally? 
Probe: How do you feel your leader helps you meet individual needs? 
Probe: How does your leader encourage you to reach your potential? 
Probe: How has your leader encouraged you to grow and change as a result of his 
interactions and communication with you?  
 
19. How does your leader empower you to grow as a leader in the workplace? 
 
(For snowball sample) 
20. What other employees do you know who might be considered leaders in the 
workplace? 
 
21. What other employees do you know who might be willing to talk about their 
experiences with me? 
 188 
 
That?s all the formal questions I have for our interview, but is there anything you 
would like to add at this point?  What should I have asked about that I didn?t? 
 
Thank you very much for agreeing to be interviewed.  May I have a phone number or 
e-mail from you, just in case I need to clarify something from the interview or ask a 
follow-up question? 
 
And if you would like a copy of our final report, let me know, and I?ll take your 
address so we can send one to you. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 189 
References 
Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2004). Leadership and gender in public relations: Perceived  
effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership styles. Journal  
of Public Relations Research, 16(2), 157-183. 
Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10, 65- 
77. 
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.  
Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39. 
Asif, S., & Sargeant, A. (2000). Modelling internal communications in the financial  
sector. European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 299-317. 
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to  
the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338. 
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004).  
Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact  
follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801-823. 
Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory  
building for veritable sustained performance. Working paper: Gallup  
Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and  
effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational  
performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345-374. 
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American  
Psychologist, 37, 122-147. 
 190 
Barbalet, J. M. (1985). Power and resistance. The British Journal of Sociology, 36(4),  
531-548.  
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:  
Free Press. 
Bass, B. M. (1990a). Bass & Stogdill?s handbook of leadership: Theory, research &  
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. 
Bass, B. M. (1990b). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to  
share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31. 
Bennis, W. G. (1983). The artform of leadership. In S. Srivastva (Ed.), The executive 
mind: New insights on managerial though and action. San Francisco: Jossey- 
Bass. 
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: Free 
Press. 
Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical 
reflections on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal 
of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 5-27. 
Berger, B. K. (2007). Public relations and organizational power. In E. L. Toth (Ed.),  
The future of excellence in public relations and communication management:  
Challenges for the next generation (pp. 221-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 
Erlbaum. 
Berger, B. K., & Reber, B. H. (2006). Gaining influence in public relations: The role  
 191 
 
of resistance in practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Bernard, H. R. (Ed.). (1998). Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. Walnut  
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. 
Berson, Y., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Transformational leadership and the  
dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a telecommunication  
firm. Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 625-646. 
Beyer, J. M. (1999a). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations.  
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 307-330. 
Beyer, J. M. (1999b). Two approaches to studying charismatic leadership: Competing  
or complimentary? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 575-589. 
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship:  Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: 
Bennett-Koehler. 
Blumer, J. (1966). The mass, the public, and public opinion. In B. Berelson & M. 
Janowitz (Eds.), Reader in public opinion and communication (2nd ed., pp. 43- 
50). New York: Free Press. 
Bogden, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An  
introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Brown. 
Botan , C. H. (1989). Theory development in public relations. In C. H. Botan & V.  
Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 99-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence  
Erlbaum. 
Bowen, S. A. (2004). Expansion of the tenth generic principle of public relations  
 192 
excellence: A Kantian theory and model for managing ethical issues. Journal  
of Public Relations Research, 16(1), 65-92. 
Brannen, J. (1992). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: An overview.  
In J. Brannen, Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 3- 
37). Avebury: Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, GB.  
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of  
organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2),  
83-98. 
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of organization- 
public relationships. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public  
relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and  
practice of public relations (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking  
relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes.  
Public Relations Review, 28, 39-48. 
Bruning, S. D., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E. (2004). Building relationships between  
organizations and publics: Examining the linkage between organization-public 
relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavioral intent. 
Communication Studies, 55(3), 435-446. 
Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization-public  
relationship scale: exploring the role that structural and personal commitment  
play in organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29, 309- 
319. 
 193 
Bruning, S. D., Langenhop, A., & Green, K. A. (2004). Examining city-resident  
relationships: Linking community relations, relationship building activities,  
and satisfaction evaluations. Public Relations Review, 30, 335-345. 
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and  
publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship  
scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157-170. 
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and  
evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations  
Review, 26(1), 85-95. 
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. 
Cameron, G. T., & McCollum, T. (1993). Competing corporate cultures: A multi- 
method, cultural analysis of the role of internal communication. Journal of  
Public Relations Research, 5, 217-250. 
Chappell, T. (1993). The soul of a business: Managing for profit and the common  
good. New York: Bantam Books. 
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.  
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,  
pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks: Sage. 
Cobb, A. T. (1984). An episodic model of power: Toward an integration of theory  
and research. Academy of Management Review, 9, 482-493.  
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional  
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
 194 
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic  
leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13,  
471-482. 
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations.  
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Conley, J., & Wagner-Marsh, F. (1998). The integration of business ethics and  
spirituality in the workplace. In L. C. Spears, (Ed.), Insights on leadership:  
Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 251-257). New York:  
John Wiley & Sons. 
Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but  
learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership  
theory and authentic leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 475-493. 
Covey, S. R. (1992). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Fireside. 
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2006). Effective public relations (9th  
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison- 
Wesley. 
DeBussy, N. M., Ewing, M. T., Pitt, L. F. (2003). Stakeholder theory and internal  
marketing communications: A framework for analyzing the influence of new  
media. Journal of Marketing Communications, 9, 147-161. 
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New  
 195 
York: John Wiley & Sons. 
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2002). The landscape of qualitative  
research: Theories and issues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage. 
DePree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday. 
Depree, M. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York: Dell. 
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Chicago: Swallow. 
Dolphin, R. R. (2005). Internal communications: Today?s strategic imperative.  
Journal of Marketing Communications, 11(3), 171-190. 
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation:  
Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review,  
20(1), 65-92. 
Dozier, D. M., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). The organization of the public relations  
function. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and  
communication management (pp. 395-418). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E., (1995). Manager?s guide to excellence  
in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence  
Erlbaum. 
Ehling, W. P. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to  
an organization. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and  
communication management (pp. 617-638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Ellis: C. (1995). Emotional and ethical quagmires in returning to the field. Journal of  
Contemporary Ethnography, 24(1), 68-98. 
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.  
 196 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  
Erickson, R. J. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic  
Interaction, 18(2), 121-144. 
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks  
total quality. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 331-371. 
Farmer, B. A., Slater, J. W., & Wright, K. S. (1998). The role of communication in  
achieving shared vision under new organizational leadership. Journal of  
Public Relations Research, 10, 219-235. 
Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations:  
Interorganizational relationships. Paper presented at the annual convention of  
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,  
Gainesville, FL. 
Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. (2003). For whom? Qualitative research,  
representations, and social responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 
Eds., The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and ideas (pp. 107-
131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Flynn, T. (2006). A delicate equilibrium: Balancing theory, practice, and outcomes.  
Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 191-201. 
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston:  
Pitman. 
Friedman, A., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of  
Management Studies, 39(1), 1-22. 
Friedman, A., & Miles, S. (2004). Stakeholder theory and communication practice.  
 197 
Journal of Communication Management, 9(1), 89-97. 
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management  
Review, 24(2), 191-205. 
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,  
14, 693-727. 
Garcia-Zamor, J. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance.  
Public Administration Review, 63(3), 355-363. 
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005).  
?Can you see the real me?? A self-based model of authentic leader and  
follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372. 
Gardner, W. L., & Schermerhorn, J. R. (2004). Unleashing individual potential:  
Performance gains through positive organizational behavior and authentic  
leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 270-281. 
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C.  
Geertz, The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-30). New York: 
Basic Books.  
George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting  
value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 
Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (2003). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and  
transformations. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of  
 198 
qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd ed., pp. 576-610). Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Toward a science of workplace  
spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz, (Eds.), Handbook of 
workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 3-28). New York: 
M. E. Sharp. 
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies  
for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. 
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. 
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity.  
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine. 
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate  
power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press. 
Greenleaf, R. K. (1978). Servant leader and follower. New York: Paulist Press. 
Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). Servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears, (Ed.), Insights on  
leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 15-20).  
New York: John Wiley & Sons. 
Greiner, L. E., & Schein, V. E. (1988). Power and organizational development.  
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.  
 199 
Grunig, J. E. (1992). Communication, public relations, and effective organizations:  
An overview of the book. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations  
and communication management (pp. 531-575). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 
Erlbaum. 
Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics:  conceptual history, recent  
challenges and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.),  
Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3-48). London:  
International Thomson Business Press. 
Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future.  
In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 11-30). Thousand Oaks,  
CA: Sage. 
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2000). Public relations in strategic management and  
strategic management of public relations: theory and evidence from the IABC 
Excellence project. Journalism Studies 1(2), 303-321. 
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to  
relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations 
strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning 
(Eds.), Public relations as relationships management: A relational approach 
to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23-53). Mahwah, NJ: 
Lawrence Erlbaum 
Grunig, J. E., & Hung, C. J. (2002, March). The effect of relationships on reputation  
and reputation on relationships: A cognitive behavioral study. Paper  
presented to the Public Relations Society of America Educator?s Academy,  
 200 
Miami, FL. 
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt,  
Rinehart, & Winston. 
Grunig, J. E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In J.  
E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication  
management (pp. 117-157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Grunig, J. E., & White, J. (1992). The effect of worldviews on public relations theory  
and practice. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and  
communication management (pp. 31-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Grunig, L. A. (1992). Power in the public relations department. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.),  
Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 483-502).  
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and  
effective organizations: A study of communication management in three  
countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective  
organization? In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and  
communication management (pp. 65-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Gunther, M. (2001). God and business. Fortune. Retrieved December 4, 2005, from  
http://weblinks2.epnet.com.proxyum.researchport.umd.edu/citation.asp?tb=1
&_ua=bt+ID++%22FOR%22+shn+1+db+buhjnh+bo+B%5F+534B&_ug=sid
+7C6DC5BF%2DF87C%2D4C03%2D80CD%2D723265BCBEEC%40sessio
nmgr2+dbs+buh+36F1&_us=hd+False+or+Date+frn+1+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+d
 201 
stb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00025706+EC14&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B
2+%2Dgunther+st%5B1+%2Dgod++and++business+st%5B0+%2DJN++%2
2Fortune%22++and++DT++20010709+tg%5B2+%2DAU+tg%5B1+%2DTI+
tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Dbuh+op%5B2+%2DAnd+op%5B1+%2DAnd+
op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+9103&cf=1&fn=1&rn=1 
Haas, J. W., Sypher, B. D., & Sypher, H. E. (1992). Do shared goals really make a  
difference? Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 166-179. 
Hall, M. R. (2006). Corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations:  
Measuring relationship-building results. Journal of Public Relations  
Research, 18(1), 1-21. 
Hallahan, K. (2001). The dynamics of issues activation and response: An issues  
processes model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 27-59. 
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder, & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of  
positive psychology (pp. 382-394). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern  
perspectives. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 
Hay, P. D., & Hartel, D. E. J. (2000). The influence framework: A theoretical bridge  
between power and organizational effectiveness. Australian Journal of  
Communication, 27(2), 131-154. 
Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication: From interpersonal  
contacts to external affairs. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy  
challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
 202 
Heath, R. L. (2001). Shifting foundations: Public relations as relationship building. In  
R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 1-9). Thousand Oaks,  
CA: Sage. 
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture?s consequences:  International differences in work- 
related values.  Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 
Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public  
Relations Research, 12(1), 93-114. 
Holtzhausen, D. R. (2007). Activism. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in  
public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next  
generation (pp. 357-379). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Holtzhausen, D. R., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern  
public relations practitioner as organizational activist. Journal of Public 
Relations Research, 14(1), 57-84. 
Homans, G. (1950). The Human Group. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public  
relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. 
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt and L. L.  
Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale:  
Southern Illinois University Press. 
Huey, J. (1994, February 21). The new post-heroic leadership. Fortune, 42-50. 
Jaksa, J. A., & Pritchard, M. S. (1994). Communication ethics: Methods of analysis  
 203 
(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect  
of management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations  
Review, 31, 277-280. 
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.  
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational  
leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology,  
88(2), 246-255. 
Karlberg, M. (1996). Remembering the public in public relations research: From  
theoretical to operational symmetry. Journal of Public Relations Research,  
8(4), 263-278. 
Ki, E., & Shin, J. (2006). Status of organization-public relationship research from an  
analysis of published articles, 1985-2004. Public Relations Review, 32, 194- 
195. 
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for  
management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231-241. 
Kirkpatrick, S. A., 1996. Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic  
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied  
Psychology, 81(1), 36-51. 
Konz, G. N. P., & Ryan, F. X. (1999). Maintaining an organizational spirituality: No  
easy task. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 200-210. 
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York:  
 204 
The Free Press. 
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Kracauer, S. (1952). The challenge of qualitative content analysis. Public Opinion  
Quarterly, 16, 631-642. 
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and  
definitions. New York: Random House. 
Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1), 19-40. 
Lauzen, M. M. (1992). Public relations roles, intraorganizational power, and  
encroachment. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(2), 61-80. 
Lauzen, M. M. (1994). Issues management mediation of linkages between  
environmental complexity and management of the public relations function. 
Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(3), 163-184. 
Lauzen, M. M. (1995). Toward a model of environmental scanning. Journal of Public  
Relations Research, 7(3), 187-203. 
Lauzen, M. M. (1997). Understanding the relation between public relations and issues  
management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(1), 65-82. 
Lauzen, M. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1992). The missing link: The public relations  
manager role as mediator of organizational environments and power  
consequences for the function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(4),  
205-220.  
Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government-community relationships: extending the  
relational theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27, 285-295. 
Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of  
 205 
public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 181-198. 
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public  
relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations  
Review, 24(1), 55-65. 
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000a). Introduction: Background and current  
trends in the study of relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D.  
Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational  
approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. xi-xvii). Mahwah,  
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000b). A longitudinal study of organization- 
public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the  
practice of relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning  
(Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to  
the study and practice of public relations (pp. 55-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence  
Erlbaum.  
Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., & Wilson, L. J. (1999). Time as an indicator of the
 perceptions and behavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and  
predicting organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations  
Research, 11(2), 167-183. 
Lee, C., & Zemke, R. (1995). The search for spirit in the workplace. In L. C. Spears  
(Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf?s theory of  
servant-leadership influenced today?s top management thinkers (pp.  99-112).  
New York: John Wiley & Sons. 
 206 
Lerbinger, O. (1997). The crisis manager: Facing risk and responsibility. Mahwah,  
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and  
emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds., The 
landscape of qualitative research: Theories and ideas (pp. 253-291). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods  
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2000). Proposals that work: A  
guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (4th ed.). Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Lofland, J. (1971). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and  
analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental  
approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive  
organizational scholarship (pp. 241-261). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 
Marsden, G. (1984). Introduction: The evangelical denomination. In G. Marsden  
(Ed.), Evangelicalism and modern America (pp. vii-xix). Grand Rapids, MI:  
Eerdmans. 
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).  
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. 
May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the  
 207 
moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3),  
247-260. 
McCormick, D. W. (1994). Spirituality and management. Journal of Managerial 
Psychology, 9(6), 5-8. 
McCown, N. (2005, May). Investigating the influence of an organization?s corporate  
leader on employee communication. Paper presented at the annual conference  
of the International Communication Association, Public Relations Division, 
New York City, NY.  
McCown, N. (2005, October). The role of public relations with internal activists.  
Paper accepted for presentation at the annual conference of the Public  
Relations Society of America Educators Academy, Miami Beach, FL. 
McCown, N. (2006, November). Internal public relations and relationship-building  
through individualized considerations: A transformational leader exemplar.  
Paper presented to the annual conference of the Public Relations Society of  
America Educators Academy, Salt Lake City, UT. 
McCown, N. (2007). The role of public relations with internal activists. Journal of  
Public Relations Research, 19(1), 47-68.   
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 
Melrose, K. (1995). Making the grass greener on your side: A CEO?s journey to  
leading by serving. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 
Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real  
leader please stand up? Leadership Quarterly, 16, 441-457. 
 208 
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded  
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  
Prentice-Hall.  
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder  
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really 
counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. 
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA:  
Sage. 
Murgolo-Poore, M. E., Pitt, L. F., & Ewing, M. T. (2002). Intranet effectiveness: A  
public relations paper-and-pencil checklist. Public Relations Review, 28, 113- 
123. 
Murgolo-Poore, M. E., Pitt, L. F., Berthon, P. R., & Prendegast, G. (2003). Corporate  
intelligence dissemination as a consequence of intranet effectiveness: An 
empirical study. Public Relations Review, 29, 171-184. 
Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric  
and asymmetric public relations. In L. A. Grunig & J. E. Grunig (Eds.), Public  
Relations Research Annual, 3 (pp. 115-131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence  
Erlbaum. 
Musser, S. J. (1997). A study of the impact of religious conversion on the giving of  
individualized consideration by leaders. Proceedings of the annual meeting of 
the Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management, 5, 102-108. 
Musser, S. J., & Orke, E. A. (1992). Ethical value systems: A typology. Journal of  
 209 
Applied Behavioral Science, 28(3), 348-362. 
Ni, L. (2006). Relationships as organizational resources: Examining public relations  
impact through its connection with organizational strategies. Public Relations  
Review, 32, 276-281. 
O?Neil, J. (2003). An investigation of the sources of influence of corporate public  
relations practitioners. Public Relations Review, 29, 159-169. 
Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese 
challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 
Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981). The art of Japanese management. New York:  
Simon & Schuster. 
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from  
America?s best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row. 
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job  
behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of  
Management Journal, 49(2), 327-340. 
Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group  
cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational  
Change Management, 17(2), 144-159. 
Pincus, J. D., Rayfield, R. E., & Cozzens, J. D., (1991). The chief executive officer?s  
internal communication role: A benchmark program of research. In J. E.  
Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 3, pp.  
1-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Plank Center for Leadership in Public Relations. www.plankcenter.ua.edu. 
 210 
Plowman, K. D. (1998). Power in conflict for public relations. Journal of Public  
Relations Research, 10(4), 237-261. 
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation:  
Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford  
University Press. 
Potter, W. J. (1996). An analysis of thinking and research about qualitative methods.  
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
Public Relations Society of America?s Commission on Public Relations Education.  
(2006, November). The professional bond: Public relations education and the 
practice.  
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration:  
Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership. Journal 
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 37-61. 
Romm, C. (1999). The role of charismatic leadership in diffusion and implementation  
of e-mail. Journal of Management Development, 18, 273-291. 
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.  
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical  
work climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business 
Ethics, 25(4) 313-328. 
Sagie, A. (1996). Effects of leader?s communication style and participative goal  
setting on performance and attitudes. Human Performance, 9(1), 51-64. 
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey- 
 211 
Bass. 
Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (Eds.). (1999). Ethnographers toolkit (Vols. 1-7).  
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. 
Scott, J. (2007). Relationship measures applied to practice. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The  
future of excellence in public relations and communication management:  
Challenges for the next generation (pp. 263-273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence  
Erlbaum. 
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and  
consideration. Journal of Management, 16(4), 693-703. 
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). ?What?s your story?? A life-stories approach to  
authentic leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395-417. 
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of  
charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4,  
1-17. 
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & vanRiel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee  
communication and perceived external prestige on organizational 
identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1051-1062. 
Snow, D. A. (1980). The disengagement process: A neglected problem in participant  
observation research. Qualitative Sociology, 3, 100-122. 
Sobo, E. J., & Sadler, B. L. (2002). Improving organizational communication and  
cohesion in a health care setting through employee-leadership exchange.  
Human Organization, 61(3), 277-287. 
 212 
Spears, L. C. (1998). Servant-leadership and the Greenleaf legacy. In L. C. Spears,  
(Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant- 
leadership (pp. 1-14). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 
Spicer, C. (1997). Organizational public relations: A political perspective. Mahwah,  
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Stoffels, J. D. (1994). Strategic issues management: A comprehensive guide to  
environmental scanning. Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon. 
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and  
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:  
Sage. 
Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. J. (Eds.). Organizational Climate: Exploration of a  
Concept. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Graduate School of Business, 
1968. 
Terry, R. W. (1993). Authentic leadership: Courage in action. San Francisco, CA:  
Jossey-Bass. 
Therkelsen, D. J., & Fiebich, C. L. (2003). The supervisor: The linchpin of employee  
relations. Journal of Communication Management, 8(2), 120-129. 
Toffler, S. (1980). The Third Wave. New York: Morrow.  
Toth, E. L. (2006, March). PR leaders? perceptions: Practice trends and PR  
education needed. Report to the Public Relations Society of America?s  
Commission on Public Relations Education, Miami, FL. 
 213 
Toth, E. L., & Heath, R. L. (1992). Rhetorical and critical approaches to public  
relations. Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Van Maanen, J. (1979). The self, the situation, and the rules of interpersonal relations.  
In W. Bennis, (Ed.), Essays in Interpersonal Dynamics. Homewood, IL:  
Dorsey Press. 
Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2001). Research perspectives on ?the public.? In R. L.  
Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 139-154). Thousand Oaks,  
CA: Sage. 
Vercic, D., & Grunig, J. E. (2000). The origins of public relations theory in  
economics and strategic management. In D. Moss, D. Vercic, and G. Warnaby  
(Eds.), Perspectives on public relations research (pp. 7-58). London:  
Routledge. 
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates.  
Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101-125. 
Wagner-Marsh, F., & Conley, J. (1999). The fourth wave: The spiritually-based firm.  
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 292-301. 
Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations:  
Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes,  
and withdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies. International Journal  
of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1083-1101. 
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective  
 214 
efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work  
outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 515- 
530. 
Weber, M. (1924/1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (T.  
Parsons, trans.). New York: Free Press. 
White, J., & Dozier, D. M. (1992). Public relations and management decision making.  
In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication  
management (pp. 91-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and  
interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Wright, D. K. (1995). The role of corporate public relations executives in the future  
of employee communications. Public Relations Review, 21(3), 181-198. 
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand  
Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Young, M., & Post, J. E. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to  
manage: How leading companies communicate with employees.  
Organizational Dynamics, 22(1), 31-43. 
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 
Yukl, G., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the  
emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly,  
10, 257-284.