Professional Documents
Culture Documents
research-article2015
CRXXXX10.1177/0093650215613137Communication ResearchJiang and Men
Article
Communication Research
1–19
Creating an Engaged © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Workforce: The Impact sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0093650215613137
of Authentic Leadership, crx.sagepub.com
Transparent Organizational
Communication, and
Work-Life Enrichment
Abstract
Scholars have increasingly recognized the importance of studying factors leading to
employee engagement. However, few researchers have created and tested theoretical
models that propose mechanisms linking employee engagement to social contextual
variables. Based on a random sample of employees (n = 391) working across different
industrial sectors in the United States, we proposed and tested a model (rooted in
the Social Exchange Theory and the Job Demands-Resources Model) that examined
how authentic leadership, transparent organizational communication, and work-life
enrichment are interrelated. A simplified model containing both significant direct and
indirect effects fit the data. Theoretical contributions and managerial ramifications of
the study were discussed.
Keywords
employee engagement, authentic leadership, transparent organizational communication,
work-life enrichment
Corresponding Author:
Hua Jiang, S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University, 215 University Place,
Syracuse, 13244, USA.
Email: hjiang07@syr.edu
Literature Review
Employee Engagement
A plethora of management and communication research shows that employee engage-
ment has positive individual and organizational outcomes (Saks, 2006). Cutting across
its various conceptualizations are two common themes of employee engagement: (a)
It refers to employees’ physical, cognitive, and emotional presence when occupying
and performing an organizational role, and (b) it is never a momentary state but a
highly persistent affective-cognitive state characterized by attention, absorption, vigor,
dedication, and empowerment (Robinson et al., 2004). Engagement represents
employees’ affective-cognitive presence in enacting their work roles and their persis-
tent, pervasive, and fulfilling state of work-related mind focused on positive affect and
empowerment (Maslach et al., 2001).
Various factors could drive employee engagement. Perceived organizational sup-
port in terms of providing resources—both financial and non-financial resources—
counters the negative effects of stressful job demands and poor working conditions
and thus increases engagement (Robinson et al., 2004). In addition to these social
contextual factors, some socio-demographic and job characteristic variables have been
suggested to influence employee engagement although to a lesser extent. For instance,
previous studies found that minority ethnic employees are more engaged than their
White colleagues and younger employees are more engaged than older employees
(Robinson et al., 2004). Apart from ethnicity and age, organizational size, income
level, and organizational position do matter—Employees from smaller companies are
more engaged than those from larger organizations, high-income employees are gen-
erally more engaged than low-income employees, employees in managerial positions
are more engaged than non-management employees (Men, 2011).
Our approach recognizes the potential influence of socio-demographic variables on
employee engagement, but focuses particularly on exploring several key drivers of
engagement as suggested by previous literature—work environment (i.e., work-life
enrichment), leadership (i.e., authentic leadership), and communication climate (i.e.,
transparent organizational communication)—and their interplay effect on employee
engagement. Conceptualizations of each of these key drivers are presented next.
Work-Life Enrichment
In defining work-life, researchers conceptualized work as employees’ paid employ-
ment and everything outside of work as life (Kossek & Lambert, 2004). Employees’
best interests are served by a balanced and healthy lifestyle that reinvigorates their life
and bolsters their morale (Haar, 2013). Resources acquired in work role as a by-prod-
uct of professional interactions and occupational development may be transferred to
and reinvested in life role (McMillan, Morris, & Atchley, 2011). When employees
enact different roles, their identities or personalities may get enhanced and expanded
as they get used to discrepancies and adjust themselves to meet the competing demands
from work and life domains (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). The resulted role transitions
and boundary fluidity that employees manage between work and life may create
enriching effects that spill over into life role that employees play (McMillan et al.,
2011). Based on the theory of the interdependencies between work and life roles,
scholars have called for more studies examining the positive interactions between
work and life, employing the concept of work-life enrichment and investigating the
links to its own antecedents and outcomes (Kossek & Lambert, 2004).
Authentic Leadership
Leadership as an organizational contextual factor could influence how employees feel
about their work environment and the organization as a whole (Men & Stacks, 2013).
We pay special attention to authentic leadership, which has four features. As summa-
rized in Walumbwa et al. (2008), a leader’s self-awareness reflects personal under-
standing of his or her strengths, weaknesses, and how his or her multifaceted self is
constructed through close interactions with other people. Relational transparency
emphasizes trust that is achieved through leaders’ self-disclosure, information sharing,
and self-expressions. Processing information in a balanced way, leaders analyze all
relevant information before making decisions, regardless of the sentiment of view-
points. Finally, as the dimension of internalized moral perspective indicates, authentic
leaders often incorporate a positive moral perspective that guides decision making and
behaviors, such as honesty, altruism, kindness, fairness, accountability, and optimism.
Theoretical Framework
The central focus of SET is on reciprocity and compensation between parties who are
mutually dependent. When employees receive highly valued “socioemotional resources”
from their employers (Saks, 2006, p. 603), they may choose to reciprocate positively,
engage themselves more into their work, and devote more of their physical, emotional,
and cognitive resources to their employers. The JD-R model extends SET by noting that
job demands and job resources may affect job stress and employee outcomes (Menguc
et al., 2013). Organizational social resources such as supervisory support, communica-
tion climate, and work environment are critical for employees not only to deal with job
demands and stress but also to foster their personal growth and engagement.
As SET and the JD-R model suggest, supervisors’ supportive leadership behavior and
the presence of a transparent internal communication structure serve as key job resources
that help employees manage various job demands and, at the same time, enrich their
nonwork life. When employees perceive a high level of work-life enrichment, they may
reciprocate toward their employer by being highly engaged in their work.
As demonstrated in SET and the JD-R model, a positive exchange between work
and life can take place when employees perceive the effectiveness of job resources in
the workplace in helping them fulfill various job demands and in strengthening their
performance in the life domain (Wayne et al., 2007). Prior empirical findings also sug-
gest that resource-rich work environment with transparent organizational communica-
tive activities is likely to foster work-life enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). For
instance, the substantial information and policies on scheduling that supervisors shared
and the welcoming attitude and transparent communication that supervisors had
enabled employees to voice their concerns and opposing thoughts about scheduling in
the workplace (Pedersen & Jeppesen, 2012). When employees can negotiate with their
supervisors for much-needed scheduling flexibility, they tend to get more involved in
their nonwork personal activities, leading to a high level of work-life enrichment
(Carlson et al., 2006). Thus, two more hypotheses are suggested:
with the sending domain (Carlson et al., 2006). As an outcome of enrichment, the
perception that resources accrued in jobs would help employees’ work performance
when facing challenging job demands and, at the same time, enhance employees’
functioning in their personal life, will likely result in attitudinal and behavioral reac-
tions to their employers—for instance, a high level of engagement with their work
(Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011). Therefore, we propose the following
hypotheses:
Method
With the assistance of a premier global provider of survey services, Survey Sampling
International (SSI; http://www.surveysampling.com/), we conducted an online survey
on a random sample of employees working across diverse industry sectors in a 2-week
period in November 2013. Through its patented online sampling platform, SSI solic-
ited participation from its 1.5 million research panel members in the United States.
Stratified and quota random sampling strategies were used to obtain a representative
sample with comparable age groups, genders, and corporation sizes across various
income and education levels. A final sample size of 391 was achieved.
Participant Profile
The average age of participants was 40 (SD = 10.58). On average, they worked 8.49
(SD = 7.35) years for their respective employers at the time of data collection. Females
made up the majority of the sample (n = 205, 52.7%). The size of participants’ employ-
ers varied from 100 to 250 employees (n = 45, 11.5%) to more than 7,000 employees
(n = 115, 29.4%) from various industry sectors. In terms of their level of position,
non-management participants accounted for 52.7% (n = 206) of the sample, followed
by middle-level management (n = 95, 24.3%), lower level management (n = 60,
15.3%), and top management (n = 30, 7.7%). Participants reported diverse annual
income levels. The income range with the largest number of participants was
US$30,000 to US$49,999 (n = 100, 25.6%).
Measures
All items used a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to
“strongly agree” (7). Nine items from Carlson et al. (2006) were used to measure work-
life enrichment. Measures for each type of work-life enrichment had high reliability
(α = .90 for development, .97 for affect, and .96 for capital). Authentic leadership was
assessed with Neider and Schriesheim’s (2011) measure. Cronbach’s alphas were .91,
.91, .90, and .91 for its four distinct dimensions: self-awareness, relational transpar-
ency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing, respectively. A mea-
sure of 18 items from Rawlins (2009) assessed an organizational climate of transparent
communication, which demonstrated high reliability (α = .94 for participation, .95 for
substantial information, and .92 for accountability). To examine employee engage-
ment, 11 items adapted from Kang (2014) and Saks (2006) were used consisting of
two subscales: Positive Affect (α = .94) and Empowerment (α = .92).
Analysis
To examine our hypotheses, we performed a two-step Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) analysis with the Mplus 7.11 program. First, because of the a priori theoretical
conceptualizations of the constructs, we tested a second-order measurement model.
Covariance paths among items within the same latent factor were added so as to control for
content redundancy (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). We then tested the structural model.
Results
Preliminary Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics. As presented in Table 1, the results of the descriptive analysis
showed that participants’ managers demonstrated moderately high authentic leadership
behavior (Mself-awareness = 4.90, SD = 1.39, n = 391; Mrelational transparency = 5.13, SD = 1.45,
n = 391; Minternalized moral perspective = 5.00, SD = 1.31, n = 391; Mbalanced processing = 4.89, SD =
1.38, n = 391). Additionally, participants believed their organizations provided with
them moderately high information (Msubstantiality = 4.92, SD = 1.25, n = 391), exhibited
moderately high participation (Mparticipation = 4.57, SD = 1.41, n = 391) and accountability
(Maccountability = 4.43, SD = 1.42, n = 391) in organizational transparent communication.
Moreover, participants reported a moderately high level of work-life development
(Mdevelopment = 4.89, SD = 1.25, n = 391), work-life capital (Mcapital = 4.83, SD = 1.43,
n = 391), and work-life affect (Maffect = 4.47, SD = 1.50, n = 391). In terms of engagement,
participants also perceived a moderately high level of positive affect (Mpositve affect = 4.70, SD
= 1.36, n = 391) and empowerment (Mempowerment = 4.47, SD = 1.44, n = 391). Correlations
between the observed variables in this study ranged from .41 to .83 (p <.01; see Table 1).
α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 .91 4.90 1.39 1.00
2 .91 5.13 1.45 .81** 1.00
3 .90 5.00 1.31 .76** .82** 1.00
4 .91 4.89 1.38 .81** .83** .80** 1.00
5 .94 4.57 1.41 .60** .57** .56** .64** 1.00
6 .95 4.92 1.25 .58** .56** .57** .57** .83** 1.00
7 .92 4.43 1.42 .50** .46** .49** .57** .81** .76** 1.00
8 .90 4.89 1.25 .44** .42** .43** .44** .44** .43** .44** 1.00
9 .97 4.47 1.50 .50** .48** .43** .51** .69** .63** .62** .66** 1.00
10 .96 4.83 1.43 .46** .45** .44** .50** .63** .61** .59** .71** .82** 1.00
11 .94 4.70 1.36 .52** .48** .48** .55** .75** .68** .69** .59** .75** .77** 1.00
12 .92 4.47 1.44 .47** .41** .42** .52** .69** .61** .65** .50** .68** .70** .82** 1.00
13 .97 4.97 1.27 .91** .93** .92** .94** .64** .61** .55** .47** .52** .50** .55** .49** 1.00
14 .97 4.66 1.26 .60** .57** .58** .64** .95** .94** .91** .47** .69** .65** .76** .70** .65** 1.00
15 .96 4.59 1.33 .52** .50** .48** .54** .65** .62** .61** .86** .92** .94** .78** .70** .55** .67** 1.00
Note. 1 = AL-self-awareness; 2 = AL-relational transparency; 3 = AL-internalized moral perspective; 4 = AL-balanced processing; 5 = TC-participation;
6 = TC-substantiality; 7 = TC-accountability; 8 = WLE-development; 9 = WLE-affect; 10 = WLE-capital; 11 = EE-positive affect; 12 = EE-empowerment; 13 = AL
(authentic leadership); 14 = TC (transparent communication); 15 = WLE (work-life enrichment); 16 = EE (employee engagement).
**Correlation is significant at p < .01 (2-tailed).
Jiang and Men 11
transparent communication, t(384) = −2.14, p < .05. Position level was not signifi-
cantly related to employees’ perception of work-life enrichment but was related to
levels of transparent organizational communication, F(3, 384) = 4.72, p < .01, work-
life enrichment, F(3, 386) = 7.67, p < .001, and employee engagement, F(3, 384) =
12.85, p < .001. In addition, salary level was not significantly associated with employ-
ees’ perceptions of authentic leadership and transparent organizational communication
but was related to work-life enrichment, F(10, 379) = 1.86, p = .05, and employee
engagement, F(10, 377) = 2.21, p < .05. Based on the results of the preliminary tests
and our reviewed literature, we controlled three variables—gender, salary level, and
position level—in our SEM analysis.
Figure 2. The hypothesized structural model with standardized path coefficients.
Note. Mediation hypotheses H7 to H9. CFI = .95; RMSEA = .047 (90% CI = [.044, .050]);
SRMR = .04; χ2 = 2,472.59; p < .001; df = 1,339; n = 381; R2 (employee engagement) = .84; R2
(transparent communication) = .50; R2 (work-life enrichment) = .59. CFI = comparative fit index;
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root
mean square residual.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 2. Fit Indices of the Hypothesized, Simplified, and Alternative Models.
Note. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error approximation;
SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CI = confidence interval.
Test of Hypotheses
As shown in our simplified model (see Figure 3), the association between authentic
leadership and transparent communication was positive and significant (β = .67, p <
.001), supporting H1. R-square for transparent organizational communication equaled
.49. The standardized path coefficients for the relationship between authentic leadership
and work-life enrichment (β = .14, p < .05) and that between transparent communication
and work-life enrichment (β = .63, p < .001) were both significant and positive. H2 and
H3 were supported. R-square for work-life enrichment was .59. H5 and H6 were sup-
ported as well. The association between transparent organizational communication
Figure 3. The final structural model with standardized path coefficients.
Note. Mediation hypotheses H7 to H9. CFI = .95; RMSEA = .047 (90% CI = [.044, .050]);
SRMR = .04; χ2 = 2,473.17; p < .001; df = 1,340; n = 381; R2 (employee engagement) = .84; R2
(transparent communication) = .49; R2 (work-life enrichment) = .59. CFI = comparative fit index;
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root
mean square residual.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
and employee engagement (β = .44, p < .001) and that between work-life enrichment
and employee engagement (β = .51, p < .001) were significant and positive. R-square
for employee engagement was .84.
A test of mediation effects with a bootstrapping procedure (N = 5,000 samples) was
conducted. Results revealed a significant indirect effect of authentic leadership on work-
life enrichment via transparent organizational communication (β = .42, p < .001; 90%
CI = [.33, .51]). The indirect effect of authentic leadership on employee engagement via
transparent organizational communication was also significant (β = .30, p < .001; 90%
CI = [.21, .38]). Therefore, H7 was supported. Work-life enrichment significantly medi-
ated the effect of authentic leadership on employee engagement (β = .07, p < .05; 90%
CI = [.00, .14]). The indirect effect of transparent organizational communication on
employee engagement via work-life enrichment was significant as well (β = .30, p < .001;
90% CI = [.21, .38]). H8 was supported. Overall, transparent organizational communica-
tion and work-life enrichment significantly mediated the effect of authentic leadership on
employee engagement (β = .22, p < .001; 90% CI = [.16, .27]). H9 was thus supported.
Discussion
Work-Life Enrichment as the Key Driver of Employee Engagement
Previous research has suggested that working environment such as resource support
and job demands (Attridge, 2009), and concern for employee health and well-being
(Robinson et al., 2004) drive employee engagement. Along these lines, results of the
the JD-R model to advance the growing literature on employee engagement through
testing organizational context factors closely associated with it. Findings of this study
provide much-needed evidence that confirms the critical roles of leadership, commu-
nication, and work-life interface in driving employee engagement. This study enriches
the theoretical understanding of employee engagement by addressing the growing
concerns of corporate transparency and authenticity, two overused yet under-researched
constructs in communication literature. Adding into the growing body of enrichment
literature from the expansionist as opposed to the conflict perspective (Greenhaus &
Powell, 2006), the present study demonstrates the positive impact of authentic leader-
ship and transparent organizational communication on employees’ work-life enrich-
ment. It emphasizes the importance of a nurturing and supportive communication and
leadership work climate for employees’ overall well-being.
In terms of strategic implications, it is essential for organizations to invest in sys-
tematic leadership training, rewarding, and providing guidance for leaders’ behavior
and communication. Additionally, organizations should build a transparent communi-
cation culture or climate that ensures the free flow of truthful, complete, relevant, and
substantial information in a timely manner, facilitates upward communication and lis-
tening, and welcomes employee participation and comments regardless of whether
they are commending, criticizing, or complaining. To that end, collaborative efforts
between communication professionals, organizational leaders, and human resource
managers are critically needed.
Additionally, the findings also attest to the value of work-life enrichment in effec-
tively engaging employees. Employees’ work and life mutual influence is a reality.
What employees experience at work (e.g., knowledge learnt, skills acquired, feel-
ings and emotions experienced) influences employees’ personal lives, and employ-
ees’ personal lives and overall well-being have significant implications for
organizational outcomes. However, in practice, organizations often fail to under-
stand how crucial work-life issues are for organizational success because work-life
issues are often perceived as “soft” issues, the linkage of which to the organizational
bottom line is not self-explanatory. By contrast, engagement issues have gained
enormous attention from organizations and business managers in the past decades. A
large amount of academic and professional literature has provided adequate evi-
dence for the linkage between employee engagement and business success (e.g.,
productivity, financial performance, sales, etc.; Robinson et al., 2004). By demon-
strating the strong effect of positive work-life interface on employee engagement,
this study highlights the strategic importance of focusing on work-life enrichment
for organizational success and provides significant practical implications for
management.
In sum, employee engagement has become a centrally desired outcome for organi-
zational success. To address the hype, guesswork, and confusion arising from the
prevalent professional speculations around the concept, more empirical research
explicating the underlying process of employee engagement and how it is related to
communicative factors is critically needed.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the editor, Dr. Michael Elwood Roloff, and the anonymous
reviewers for their constructive feedback and helpful suggestions in revising the manuscript.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the
research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24, 383-398.
Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and super-
visor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal of
Retailing, 72, 57-75.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive
side of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-family enrich-
ment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131-164.
Cotterrell, R. (2000). Transparency, mass media, ideology and community. Cultural Values, 3,
414-426.
DeConinck, J. B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational sup-
port, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust. Journal of
Business Research, 63, 1349-1355.
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across
multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38, 1167-1230.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-
family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.
Haar, J. M. (2013). Testing a new measure of work-life balance: A study of parent and non-
parent employees from New Zealand. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24, 3305-3324.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1991). Supervisory feedback: Alternative types and their
impact on salespeople’s performance and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 28,
190-201.
Kossek, E. E., & Lambert, S. J. (2004). Work-family scholarship: Voice and context. In E. E.
Kossek & S. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration in organizations: New directions for
theory and practice (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422.
Matthews, R. A., Mills, M. J., Trout, R. C., & English, L. (2014). Family-supportive supervisor
behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: A contextually dependent medi-
ated process. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 168-181.
Mazutis, D., & Slawinski, N. (2008). Leading organizational learning through authentic dia-
logue. Management Learning, 39, 437-456.
McMillan, H. S., Morris, M. L., & Atchley, E. K. (2011). Constructs of the work/life interface:
A synthesis of the literature and introduction of the concept of work/life harmony. Human
Resource Development Review, 10, 6-25.
Men, L. R. (2011). Exploring the impact of employee empowerment on organization-employee
relationship. Public Relations Review, 37, 435-437.
Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2013). Measuring the impact of leadership style and employee
empowerment on perceived organizational reputation. Journal of Communication
Management, 19, 171-192.
Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic inter-
nal communication and employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 26, 301-324.
Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, M., & Haddad, A. (2013). To be engaged or not to be engaged:
The antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. Journal of Business
Research, 66, 2163-2170.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta-analytic
investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and
safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 71-94.
Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI):
Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146-1164.
Pedersen, V. B., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2012). Contagious flexibility? A study on whether sched-
ule flexibility facilitates work-life enrichment. Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
347-359.
Rawlins, B. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement
of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 71-99.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement.
Brighton, UK: Institute for Employment Studies.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-618.
Sand, G., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2000). The impact of social support on salesperson burnout and
burnout components. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 13-26.
Stirton, L., & Lodge, M. (2001). Transparency mechanisms: Building publicness into public
services. Journal of Law and Society, 28, 471-489.
Tapscott, D., & Ticoll, D. (2003). The naked corporation: How the age of transparency will
revolutionize business. New York, NY: Free Press.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34, 89-126.
Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work-family facil-
itation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences.
Human Resource Management Review, 17, 63-76.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Author Biographies
Hua Jiang, PhD, is an assistant professor of public relations in S.I. Newhouse School of Public
Communications at Syracuse University. Her research interests include relationship manage-
ment, employee communication, work-life issues, social media, and public relations leadership.
She has published more than two dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters.
Her work has appeared in leading refereed journals including Journal of Public Relations
Research, Public Relations Review, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Journal of
Health Communication, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Journal of Public
Affairs, Public Relations Journal, Public Relations Inquiry, Asian Journal of Communication,
and Global Media Journal-Canadian Edition.
Rita Linjuan Men, PhD, APR, is an assistant professor of public relations at the University of
Florida. Her research interests include employee engagement, leadership communication, orga-
nizational relationship and reputation management, and social media public relations. Her work
has appeared in leading refereed journals including Journal of Public Relations Research,
Management Communication Quarterly, Public Relations Review, Journal of Communication
Management, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Corporate Reputation
Review, Computers in Human Behavior, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
Public Relations Journal, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Journal of Interactive
Advertising, among others.