Skip to main content
NCBI home page
SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 May 6:23294884231171773. doi: 10.1177/23294884231171773

Collective Responsibility in the Workplace and its Effects on COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Among Employees: The Role of Strategic Internal Communication

Jo-Yun Li 1,✉, Weiting Tao 1, Yeunjae Lee 1
PMCID: PMC10164458

Abstract

Businesses, as one of the largest units in society, are expected to be socially responsible and become vaccine advocate to help with recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Building upon this expectation, this study takes an internal communication perspective to explore the role of organizations in motivating employees to stand in solidarity and adopt prosocial behavior (i.e., vaccination against COVID-19 in this study) in the fight against the pandemic. Specifically, we propose a psychological model that pictures how organizational informing and listening can facilitate employee attitude toward vaccination by realizing their collective responsibility to protect others at work via communal relationships with the organizations. The findings of this study contribute to ethical practices of organizational communication by revealing the under-explored role of organizations in addressing vaccine hesitance and resistance during the current pandemic.

Keywords: strategic internal communication, communal relationships, collective responsibility, vaccine hesitancy, pandemic management

Introduction

As widely circulating variants of COVID-19 continue to spread around the world, the availability of approved vaccines promotes hope for herd immunity that will protect the population from the disease and return the world to normalcy (Hamel et al., 2020). However, achieving such immunity requires a collective effort from every person in society (Giubilini et al., 2018). Only when each individual realizes their collective responsibility and contributes to herd immunity through vaccination can the world slow down the spread of the virus (Grigoryan & Krylov, 2020). Such a perception of solidarity is an important predictor of vaccine acceptance (Betsch et al., 2018). Although scholars have attempted to uncover the rationale in terms of how individuals form such perceptions of responsibility in the face of a pandemic, much of the existing literature is mainly situated in community settings (Machingaidze & Wiysonge, 2021).

Businesses, as one of the largest units in society, are seen as a great platform to deliver health and safety information, encourage the perceptions of collective responsibility, and help stem the spread of virus (International Labor Organization [ILO], 2020). For example, Chobani, an American food company, organized a series of workshops for its employees, inviting reputable medical experts to provide information and answer questions on a range of topics in relation to Covid-19 vaccine, including potential side effects of the vaccines, effectiveness of the vaccines, and conspiracy theories on the vaccines. Tyson Foods partnered with a healthcare system to ensure its employees have access to vaccine information, administration, and counseling. Amazon also organized multiple pop-up vaccine sites for its employees in its warehouses and retail stores. Scholars believe that these actions implemented by employers and companies can help reduce the economic and social impact of the public health crisis (L. R. Men, 2021; Vu et al., 2022). To verify the influential role of business organizations in pandemic management and prevention, the current study integrates internal communication theory to explore how these business entities can motivate their employees to stand in solidarity and adopt prosocial behavior (i.e., vaccination against COVID-19 in this study) to battle against the pandemic.

In the past decades, the strategic internal communication approach has been one of the primary paradigms in employee communication research (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Ferguson, 2018). Despite the well-established line of research in this area, the question of how communication practices and relationship building within organizations can help address workplace health issues such as vaccination remains unanswered. Strategic internal communication is a fundamental tool in managing employee behaviors that maintain organizations’ well-being (Thelen, 2021). As suggested by social exchange theory and the rule of reciprocity, good quality of internal communication with an emphasis on informing and listening facilitates employees’ readiness to adopt prosocial acts at work as a return to their organizations (Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2014). This communication strategy can also help organizations establish and maintain communal relationships with their employees (Lee, 2022). Such a relationship, where individuals assume responsibility to take care of each other for mutual welfare, may help develop responsibility perceptions and encourage prosocial behaviors (Small & Simonsohn, 2008). To verify this reasoning in the context of COVID-19 vaccine decision-making among employees, this study proposes a psychological mechanism that explains how organizational informing and listening can facilitate employee vaccine acceptance by realizing their collective obligations to protect others at work via communal relationships with the organizations. In other words, organizational informing and listening regarding Covid-19 vaccination will make employees feel supported and cared, which will further increase their perceived responsibility to protect the workforce. Such perceptions will ultimately give rise to employee acceptance and approval of vaccination (see Figure 1 for the conceptual model).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual model.

An online survey with 505 full-time employees in the United States was conducted. The findings provided empirical support for our proposed mechanism. Our study provides much-needed theoretical insights into the role of internal communication and strategic management in developing solidarity attitudes within organizations as well as encouraging employee prosocial behaviors. It not only contributes to the rapid growth of literature in vaccine communication by verifying the important role of workplace communication in facilitating vaccine acceptance; it also advances internal communication research by bringing in the perspectives of health communication and psychology. Meanwhile, our study provides practical understanding for organizational leaders and communicators to effectively and ethically respond to vaccine hesitancy and other health-related issues in the workplace in the face of a public health crisis. The findings can also serve as the basis of ethical communication guidelines for organizations to protect their workforce during pandemics.

Literature Review

Employee Prosocial Organizational Behavior (PSOB)—Vaccination

Employee prosocial organizational behavior (PSOB) refers to an action that employees adopt to promote individuals’, groups’, or organizations’ interests while they fulfill their work duties (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; McNeely & Meglino, 1994). Such behavior, including “helping, sharing, donating, cooperating, and volunteering, is a positive social act carried out to produce and maintain the well-being and integrity of others” in the workplace (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986, p. 710). Given that prosocial behavior does not indicate a specific format and should vary depending on the context, PSOB can refer to all types of behaviors adopted to help others and benefit the organizations (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Vaccination against COVID-19 could also be considered as a type of PSOB given the social benefits of vaccination to the workplace, such as the prevention of the spread of the virus to others at work. According to ILO (2020), workplace serves as an efficient platform to share health and safety information, increase health awareness, promote prevention measures, and help restrict the spread of disease. Policies, strategies, procedures, and activities, such as safety rules, training, and knowledge sharing, implemented by organizations to demonstrate their commitment to employee health and safety have been found to effectively protect employees’ physical and mental wellbeing in the face of COVID-19 (e.g., Hu et al., 2021). Employees feel taken care of by their organization when they realize the organization’s efforts on protecting the life and health of their employees (Vu et al., 2022). This appreciation thus encourages employees’ reciprocal response to feeling support for by their organizations, such as PSOB (Reader et al., 2017).

PSOB has been viewed as a product of social exchanges between organizations and employees. Social exchange theory posits that employee behaviors are the result of an exchange process based on three fundamental factors: relationship, reciprocity, and exchange (Blau, 1964). The provision of valuable resources from organizations makes employees feel obligated to reciprocate/return the favor by performing prosocial attitudes and behaviors (McNeely & Meglino, 1994). Internal communication can be seen as a basic representation of social exchange. Organizations exchange resources via communication, and employees as a receiving party reciprocate with positive actions in the workplace, such as citizenship behaviors or engagement (Ruck & Welch, 2012; Saks, 2006). Specifically, based on the rule of reciprocity, good quality of communication may motivate employees to adopt prosocial acts as a return to the organization (Bayighomog & Araslı, 2019). Through the lens of social exchange theory, this study investigates how internal communication practices can affect employees’ vaccine attitude and behavior that may help organizations minimize economic and social impact of the pandemic.

Perceived Responsibility for Infectious Disease via Vaccination and Vaccine Acceptance

Vaccination against a pandemic is different from typical health behaviors because it not only protects one’s own health but also reduces the potential influence on others’ health. People make health decisions based on the principles of individual autonomy, rights, and wellbeing, whereas public health outcomes depend on the principles of solidarity and collective responsibility (Verweij & Dawson, 2019). The decision of vaccine uptake thus becomes a dilemma between individual autonomy and moral responsibility (Salmon & Omer, 2006). Vaccine acceptance involve potential costs to individuals’ own health or freedom and a collective contribution to society via preserving the lives of those who are at high risk of severe illness (Giubilini et al., 2018). The moral pressure regarding the collective good thus creates a perception of collective responsibility (Miller, 2007), which refers to “the willingness to protect others by one’s own vaccination by means of herd immunity” (Betsch et al., 2018). Such a perception was found to boost individuals’ prosocial acts to protect others (Böhm & Betsch, 2022). Following this reasoning, we proposed that employees’ willingness to protect others in the workplace should lead to greater vaccine acceptance. To clarify, although the term of vaccine acceptance often refers to physical receiving of a vaccine, this study adopted a broader approach that defines and measures vaccine acceptance as one’s support of vaccination, including believing in effectiveness and necessity of vaccines and holding positive values toward vaccines (Sarathchandra et al., 2018). Scholars believed that such conceptualization and operationalization of vaccine acceptance can capture the understanding of support for vaccination in a more comprehensive way (Sarathchandra et al., 2018). The following hypothesis was proposed:

  • H1: Employees’ perceived responsibility toward the vaccination (i.e., being vaccinated to protect others at work) is positively related to their vaccination attitude.

Antecedents of Perceived Responsibility

Scholars have found that psychological constructs at the individual level, such as empathy and need to belong, are influential contributors to higher levels of perceived collective responsibility (Wismans et al., 2021). Individuals who feel more empathy toward other people or want to be accepted by other people would perceive higher level of responsibility to protect others via vaccination. Moreover, personality traits were found to predict the perceptions of collective responsibility (Wismans et al., 2021). Those with more altruistic personalities would be more likely to recognize their responsibility to care and help others. However, research in PSOB (e.g., Hu et al., 2021) suggested that such prosocial attitude and act could also been encouraged by organizations’ managements and practices. Thus, this study endeavors to identify possible organizational/contextual factors that may help shape employees’ perceived responsibility to protect others at work. These factors include internal communication and communal relationships, along with the notion of strategic internal communication theory as its base.

Strategic Internal Communication

Communication is viewed as the foundation of an organization’s operation because of its importance in maintaining the organization (Ruck & Welch, 2012). Specifically, internal communication is an integral process in ensuring effective implementation of organizational strategy and policy (Karanges et al., 2015). Internal communication refers to “communication between an organization’s strategic managers and its internal stakeholders (i.e., employees), designed to promote commitment to the organization, a sense of belonging to it, awareness of its changing environment and understanding of its evolving aims” (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p.186). The communication process comprises two dimensions: organizational informing and listening. Traditional internal communication is predominantly one-way information dissemination (Welch & Jackson, 2007). Such dissemination is essential to distribute information and keep employees informed. However, scholars suggested that effective internal communication should be two-way and incorporate employee voice and listening (Ruck, 2020). Recent corporate communication theory considered internal communication as a hybrid function that highlights the importance of information dissemination with the intention of relationship building through listening (Ruck, 2021). Extending beyond traditional top-down information distribution, the revised definition of internal communication emphasizes employee engagement in the process of communication (Ruck, 2021):

Keeping employees informed about what they need to know and what they are most interested in, giving them multi-faceted and regular opportunities to have a say about what goes on, and actively listening and responding to what is said with empathy and positive regard to them as human beings (p. 99).

This definition not only acknowledges the important role of the traditional one-way, transactional communication that provides needed information to employees but also highlights the necessity of listening in internal communication practices (Macnamara, 2020). The combination of informing and listening should help organizations establish meaningful dialog between management and employees in the workplace and allow employees to be able to participate in decision-making processes (Ruck, 2021). Such a hybrid communication strategy has been found to promote organizational culture and facilitate employee positive behaviors in the workplace (Ruck et al., 2017). Building on this reasoning and supporting empirical evidence, we pay specific attention to the relationship between organizational informing/listening and employees’ perceived responsibility in the fight against the pandemic.

A plethora of studies have attempted to explore potential outcomes of internal communication (Lee & Yue, 2020). A well-documented theoretical conclusion from these studies is that organizations with effective communication practices have the power to affect their employees’ psychological state (Reed et al., 2016). For example, internal communication with an emphasis on listening was found to resonate among groups in the workplace, thereby building employee connectedness, generating collective meaning, and encouraging prosocial behaviors for organizational success (Reed et al., 2016). Specifically, knowing what needs to be known and being listened to cultivate a sense of community and facilitate employees’ readiness to advocate for their organizations (White et al., 2010). Prior research showed that, influenced by the atmosphere of a supportive environment at work, employees are more likely to respond to others’ needs out of collective responsibility (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Guerra-Baez, 2016). Such effects on the development of collective sentiment within the organizations lead to an assumption that increased communication and understanding of different perspectives, roles, and decisions about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations in the workplace may make employees feel obligated to protect others at work. Moreover, social exchange theory states that if employees are provided an open workplace where information is exchanged easily and completely and meaningful interactions between supervisors and employees occur regularly, a relational exchange process will be facilitated and employees will engage in positive behaviors at work (Rich et al., 2010; Ruck & Welch, 2012). In this study, collective responsibility perceptions and vaccine acceptance can be referred to as the act of reciprocity, in which employees feel obligated to return the valued resources they receive via effective internal communication (Saks, 2006). Thus, the following hypotheses were proposed:

  • H2: In an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, the practice of organizational informing (a) and listening (b) is positively related to employees’ perceived responsibility toward the vaccination (i.e., being vaccinated to protect others at work).

  • H3: In an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, the practice of organizational informing (a) and listening (b) is positively related to employee vaccine acceptance.

Communal Relationships

Along with strategic internal communication, relationship building becomes a focal function of employee relations practices (Lee & Yue, 2020). Communal relationship theory, which is a contrasting theoretical framework to social exchange theory, explicates that individuals in communal relationships are committed to taking care of each other because of their concerns for the other party’s welfare instead of an expectation of reciprocation from the relationship (Clark & Mills, 1979). Scholars have highlighted “the norm of mutual responsiveness” in communal relationships, indicating that receiving benefits from one party “does not create a specific deb or obligation, nor does it alter the general obligation that the members have to aid the other when the other has a need” (Clark & Mills, 1979, p. 13). Individuals offer help to another party without expecting exchange benefits but simply because of their care and concerns for the other party’s well-being (Lee & Kim, 2021). The responsiveness to each other’s needs creates a mutually satisfying and rewarding relationship (Clark, 1981).

Drawing upon communal relationship perspectives, scholars suggested that employees who perceive that the organizations acknowledge their contributions and worry about their wellbeing would be more likely to engage in helping behaviors toward the organizations (Iqbal et al., 2018). Namely, communal relationships help to establish mutual understanding between employees and organizations, facilitate employees’ perceived necessity of responding to organizations’ needs, and shape their perceptions and behaviors in the workplace (Gillis, 2017). Given that protecting others and maintaining the common wellbeing in the workplace are examples of employee action demonstrating concerns and care toward the organizations, based on the principle of communal relationship theory, we assume that such a relationship would encourage employees to prioritize group interest for the sake of the collective good of their organizations. Thus, the following hypotheses were proposed:

  • H4: In an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, organization–employee communal relationship is positively related to employees’ perceived responsibility toward vaccination (i.e., being vaccinated to protect others at work).

  • H5: In an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, organization–employee communal relationship is positively related to employee vaccine acceptance.

Strategic Internal Communication and Communal Relationships

Extant employee communication literature has revealed that strategic internal communication contributes to the development of quality employee–organization relationships. For example, organizations’ transparent communication with employees has been repeatedly documented to cultivate favorable relationships indicated by trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, and commitment between employees and the organizations (e.g., Lee & Queenie Li, 2020; Rawlins, 2008). Such communication is defined as “an organization’s communication to make available all legally releasable information to employees whether positive or negative in nature—in a manner that is accurate, timely, balanced and unequivocal” (L. R. Men, 2014, p. 260). The notion of transparent communication—particularly its information transparency dimension that concerns whether employees receive truthful, useful, and substantial information from their organization—is conceptually akin to the practice of organizational informing examined in the present study (Lee, 2022). When an organization delivers accurate, truthful, useful, and balanced information regarding COVID-19 vaccination to employees in a timely manner, employees are likely to acknowledge the organization’s effort to meet their vaccine-related information needs. Perhaps more importantly, they are likely to see such an effort as a caring gesture from the organization to protect their safety and well-being, thereby tending to foster communal relationships between the organization and employees.

In addition to the practice of organizational informing, we propose that organization listening can effectively promote communal relationships between an organization and its employees. Organizational listening in an internal communication setting is characterized by “recognizing, acknowledging, understanding, and responding to the needs, concerns, and interests of internal stakeholders (i.e., employees across all levels) from both the organization’s and leaders’ perspectives to foster mutually beneficial relationships” (Qin & Men, 2022, p. 4). As mentioned, organizational listening represents a step beyond information distribution. Organizational listening is an integral part of two-way communication and dialog between employees and the organization to cultivate mutual understanding (Macnamara, 2016). Given these attributes, organizational listening becomes essential when the communication topics concern controversial issues such as COVID-19 vaccination. When employees experience organizations’ efforts to seek and embrace their individual thoughts, take their perspectives, accommodate their different needs, and address their questions regarding vaccination, they are likely to acknowledge organizations’ commitment to care for their health and well-being. As a result, communal relationships may grow. Empirically, prior work in employee communication research has provided strong evidence supporting the function of organization listening, along with its sibling constructs (e.g., symmetrical communication and dialogic communication), in enhancing employee–organization relationship quality and particularly communal relationships (e.g., Lee, 2022; Song & Tao, 2022). Summarizing the above discussion, we suggest:

  • H6: In an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, the practice of organizational informing (a) and listening (b) is positively related to organization–employee communal relationship during the pandemic.

Mediating Role of Perceived Responsibility

The perceptions of collective responsibility have been considered one of the primary determinants of vaccine acceptance during a pandemic (Betsch et al., 2018). In addition to the direct effect of perceived responsibility on employee vaccine acceptance, this factor may function as a mediator between strategic internal communication and employee vaccine attitude and between organization–employee communal relationships and employee vaccine attitude. According to the above reasoning, organizational informing/listening and communal relationships may make employees consider the organization to behave in their interests and care for their wellbeing (R. L. Men & Bowen, 2016). This perception facilitates their perceived moral obligation to vaccinate for the sake of workplace safety. Such enhanced collective responsibility perceptions, in turn, will increase employee vaccine acceptance. Thus, the following hypotheses were proposed:

  • H7: Employees’ perceived responsibility toward the vaccination (i.e., being vaccinated to protect others at work) mediates the relationship (a) between organizational informing and employee vaccine acceptance and (b) between organizational listening and employee vaccine acceptance.

  • H8: Employees’ perceived responsibility toward the vaccination (i.e., being vaccinated to protect others at work) mediates the relationship between organization–employee communal relationships and employee vaccine acceptance.

Joint Effect of Organizational Informing and Listening

As Ruck (2021) suggested, organizational informing and listening are important when communicating with employees, and both strategies should be adopted concurrently. However, in reality, not every organization allocates resources and efforts equally to informing and listening practices. This study seeks to compare the two communication practices and their effects on organization–employee communal relationships, collective responsibility perceptions, and vaccine acceptance in the context of COVID-19 vaccination. The following research question was thus proposed:

  • RQ1: In an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, how do the two types of strategic communication practices (i.e., informing and listening) jointly affect (a) organization–employee communal relationships, (b) employees’ perceived responsibility toward the vaccination (i.e., being vaccinated to protect others at work), and (c) employee vaccine acceptance?

Method

Sampling and Participants

To test the hypotheses and research question, we administrated an online survey with full-time employees with various levels of job positions working at small, medium, and large companies in the United States in mid-July 2021. To recruit qualified participants, we used assistance from Dynata, a premier survey company with access to two million panel participants in the U.S. through its patented platform. During participant recruitment, we used stratified random sampling to obtain a representative sample of U.S. employees according to the most recent U.S. census data in gender, age, and race/ethnicity categories. 1 Considering that the key dependent outcome of the study is employees’ vaccine acceptance, we excluded participants from companies and industries that mandated COVID-19 vaccinations at the time of the survey to avoid potential confounds. At the time of the survey, some organizations, such as those in the retailing and education service industries, began to mandate the coronavirus vaccines for their employees. Additionally, because healthcare workers had a high vaccine uptake rate at the time of the survey, and many were mandated to take the vaccines, we excluded them from this study.

After removing disqualified participants and participants that failed attention checks, we arrived at a final sample size of 505 employees. On average, these participants are approximately 49 years old (SD = 15). Among them, 53.7% were male while 46.3% were female. A majority (64.2%) were White/Caucasian, 13.1% were Black/African American, 10.7% were Asian/Asian American, 7.7% were Hispanic or Latino American, 2.0% were American Indian or Alaska native, and the remaining respondents reported other races/ethnicities (e.g., mixed). Approximately 36.8% of the participants had a bachelor’s degree, 19.8% had a master’s degree, and 17.0% had some college credits but no degree, followed by 13.1% with high school education or lower, 9.9% with an associate degree, and 3.4% with a doctoral degree. Table 1 presents other demographic information of the survey participants, including their annual income, political ideology, job positions, and company tenure.

Table 1.

Participants’ Work Background Information (N = 505).

Participant profiles Frequency Percentage (%)
Political Ideology
 Conservative 168 33.3%
 Neutral 159 31.5%
 Liberal 178 35.3%
Job position
 Non-management 270 55.2%
 Lower-level management 43 8.5%
 Middle-level management 123 24.4%
 Top management 60 11.9%
Time in the current organization
 Less than a year 38 7.5%
 1–3 years 82 16.2%
 4–6 years 106 21%
 7–9 years 52 10.3%
 More than 10 years 227 45%
Annual household income
 Less than $15,000 7 1.4%
 $15,000 to $34,999 63 12.5%
 $35,000 to $49,999 61 12.1%
 $50,000 to $74,999 109 21.6%
 $75,000 to $99,999 108 21.4%
 $100,000 or more 157 31.1%
Open in a new tab

With regard to participants’ COVID-19 vaccination status and concerns, 17% of the participants were unvaccinated and did not have plans to get vaccinated. Approximately 10% of the participants had the first vaccine dose but chose to postpone the second dose. Among the remainder of the participants who were fully vaccinated, they demonstrated various levels of concern (e.g., vaccine side effects, risks, costs, distrust toward vaccination/health agencies, vaccine efficacy). For example, 5% had a great level of concern, 7% had a moderate level, 7% had a mild level, 15% had a low level, and 40% had no concerns.

Measures

To measure variables of interest, this adopted scales from previous literature and used seven-point Likert scales for all items, where “1” represented “strongly disagree” and “7” represented “strongly agree.” Table 2 shows all measurement items.

Table 2.

Measurement Items and Factor Loadings.

Constructs Items AVE CR Standardized factor loadings
Organizational informing 0.873 0.972
How your organization communicates with you (its employees) regarding COVID-19 vaccination recommendations?
My organization sends out information to its employees. 0.955*
My organization speaks to its employees. 0.937*
My organization focuses more on one-way communication from the organization to its employees. 0.924*
Most communication from my organization is designed to provide information to its employees. 0.918*
Most communication in my organization is one-way: from executives to employees. 0.936*
Organizational listening 0.852 0.978
How your organization communicates with you (its employees) regarding COVID-19 vaccination recommendations?
My organization shares common ground of communication with employees. 0.923*
My organization tries to establish communication employees correctly understood. 0.943*
My organization understands problems from employees’ perspectives. 0.932*
My organization is empathetic in understanding employees’ feelings. 0.917*
My organization is not arrogant in communicating with employees. 0.921*
My organization deals with diverse employees’ opinions effectively. 0.925*
My organization accepts employees’ opinions as worthy of consideration. 0.907*
My organization pays attention to what employees said. 0.916*
Communal relationship 0.851 0.972
In light of my organization’s communication about COVID-19 vaccination, I believe.
My organization takes care of its employees even when doing so brings few returns. 0.900*
My organization takes care of its employees even when doing so brings few returns. 0.900*
I feel cared for by my organization unconditionally. 0.948*
My organization helps its employees without expecting something in return. 0.942*
My organization values its relationship with employees more than it values profits. 0.927*
I feel that my organization cares for employees without calculation. 0.918*
Perceived responsibility 0.832 0.971
I feel personally accountable for reducing the risk of infecting people at my work during the COVID-19 pandemic. 0.912*
I get vaccinated for COVID-19 because I can also protect my workplace. 0.917*
Vaccination is a collective action to prevent the spread of diseases in my workplace. 0.908*
Vaccine acceptance 0.881 0.974
Getting COVID-19 vaccines is a ____ decision.
Foolish—Wide 0.943*
Harmful—beneficial 0.937*
Worthless—Valuable 0.946*
Bad—Good 0.928*
Negative—Positive 0.939*
Open in a new tab
*

p < .001.

Organizational Informing

Informing (M = 5.19, SD = 1.41, α = .927) was measured using five items adapted from one-way communication scales by Duthler and Dhanesh (2018). A sample item was “Please tell us how your organization communicates with you (its employees) regarding COVID-19 vaccination recommendations: Most communication in my organization is one-way: from executives to employees.”

Organizational Listening

Listening (M = 4.79, SD = 1.45, α = .939) was measured using eight items adapted from dialogic communication scales by Yang et al. (2015), mutuality (eight items, α = .970). A sample item was “Please tell us how your organization communicates with you (its employees) regarding COVID-19 vaccination recommendations: My organization is empathetic in understanding employees’ feelings.”

Organization–Employee Communal Relationship

Communal relationship was measured with eight items (M = 4.87, SD = 1.43, α = .982) adopted from Lee and Kim (2021). A sample item included “In light of my organization’s decision about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, I believe my organization values its relationship with employees more than it values profits.”

Collective Responsibility

Collective responsibility was measured with three items adapted from Betsch et al. (2018) and Tagini et al. (2022) (M = 5.16, SD = 1.61, α = .937). A sample item was “I feel personally accountable for reducing the risk of infecting people at my work during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Employee Vaccine Acceptance

Vaccine acceptance was measured with five items adapted from Myers and Goodwin (2011) (M = 5.12, SD = 1.73, α = .980). A sample item was “Getting COVID-19 vaccines is a wise decision.”

Data Analysis

A two-stage procedure of structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was conducted (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) with the Mplus program, to test the hypotheses suggested in this study. Specifically, the measurement model was first evaluated through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), followed by the assessment of the structural model. The following model fit indices from Hu and Bentler (1998) were used: the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) <0.08; comparative fit index (CFI) >0.90; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) >0.90, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) <0.90.

Results

Preliminary Data Analysis

A series of regression analyses was conducted to examine the effects of socio-demographic variables. Female and/or older employees were more likely to approve of vaccination than males (−0.081, p < .05; .295, p < .001). Individuals’ political ideology and their vaccine behavior with the concern level were also positively associated with their approval of vaccination (0.303, p < .001; .372, p < .001). Namely, those who identified themselves as liberal or were vaccinated with fewer concerns would be more likely to approve the vaccination. No difference was found in terms of participants’ race/ethnicity, education level, job position, or organization size and any of the key variables. Based on these findings, age, gender, political ideology, and vaccine behavior were controlled in the following SEM analysis.

SEM Analysis

Table 3 summarizes correlations among our key variables. Prior to test the proposed model, multicollinearity between exogenous variables was checked. Variance inflation factor (VIF) test was performed to detect multicollinearity. The results of VIF tests showed that no VIF values were greater than 10, the cutoff values to detect multicollinearity recommended by Belsley et al. (2005). Moreover, as presented in Table 1, the values of composite reliability (CR) for each latent variable ranged from 0.97 to 0.98. The average of variance extracted (AVE) values were greater than 0.5 and the values of the square root of AVE were greater than the correlations among the variables. These results demonstrate the internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity of the measures.

Table 3.

Correlations Among Covariates and Variables of Interest.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Covariates –
 1. Age –
 2. Gender – –
 3. Political ideology – – –
 4. Vaccine behavior with concern levels – – – –
Variables of interest
 5. Organizational informing .063 .037 .077 .149** –
 6. Organizational listening .033 .028 .095 .173** .657** –
 7. Organization-employee communal relationship .025 .014 .035 .040 .580** .653** –
 8. Collective responsibility .228** .069 .271** .421** .379** .351** .305** –
 9. Vaccine acceptance 2.63** –.108** .226** .429** .254** .227** .192** .682** –
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05. **p < .01.

The results of CFA demonstrated reasonable model fits for the measurement model, χ2 (481) = 1067.179; RMSEA = 0.069 [0.063, 0.075]; CFI = 0.944; TLI = 0.938; SRMR = 0.036. They also revealed that all the factor loading values were significant and above the threshold value of 0.5 (Table 2), providing support for convergent validity of the measurement model (Stevens, 1992). We thus proceeded to test the structural models. Given that the hypothesized model fits the data well based on the cutoff values, χ2 (484) =1069.612; RMSEA = 0.069 [0.063, 0.074]; CFI = 0.944; TLI = 0.938; SRMR = 0.036, we interpreted the findings. Figure 1 depicts the final model.

Hypothesis Testing

H1 suggested that employees’ perceived responsibility toward the vaccination would positively predict their attitude toward vaccination. A significant positive relationship was found, indicating that such a perception was positively related to their approval of the vaccination (b = 0.881, p < .001). Thus, H1 was supported.

H2a proposed that, in an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, the practice of organizational informing would positively predict employees’ perceived responsibility toward the vaccination. A significant positive relationship was found, indicating such a communication practice was positively related to employees’ perceived responsibility (b = 0.227, p < .01). Thus, H2a was supported.

H2b predicted that, in an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, the practice of organizational listening would positively predict employees’ perceived responsibility toward the vaccination. A significant positive relationship was found, indicating that such a communication practice was positively related to employees’ perceived responsibility (b = 0.432 p < .001). Thus, H2b was supported.

H3a suggested that, in an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, the practice of organizational informing would positively predict employees’ vaccine acceptance. No significant relationship was found (b = 0.041, p = .316). Thus, H3a was not supported.

H3b proposed that, in an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, the practice of organizational listening would positively predict employees’ vaccine acceptance. No significant relationship was found (b = 0.130, p = .214). Thus, H3b was not supported.

H4 predicted that, in an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, organization–employee communal relationship would positively predict employees’ perceived responsibility toward the vaccination. A significant positive relationship was found, indicating such a relationship was positively related to employees’ perceived responsibility (b = 0.443, p < .001). Thus, H4 was supported.

H5 suggested that, in an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, organization–employee communal relationship would positively predict employees’ vaccine acceptance. No significant relationship was found (b = 0.119, p = .249). Thus, H5 was not supported.

H6a proposed that, in an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, the practice of organizational informing would positively predict organization–employee communal relationship. A significant positive relationship was found, indicating that such a communication practice was positively related to employees’ communal relationship with the organizations (b = 0.354, p < .001). Thus, H6a was supported.

H6b predicted that, in an organizational decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, the practice of organizational listening would positively predict organization–employee communal relationship. A significant positive relationship was found, indicating such a communication practice was positively related to employees’ communal relationship with the organizations (b = 0.906, p < .001). Thus, H6b was supported.

To test hypotheses 7 and 8, we performed mediation analysis using Mplus to identify whether strategic internal communication practices and organization–employee communal relationship can lead to employees’ vaccine acceptance through perceived collective responsibility. The results showed significant indirect effects in the path from organizational informing and listening to employee vaccine acceptance via perceived responsibility (0.312, p < .01; 381, p < .01). Thus, H7a–b were supported. The results also indicated significant indirect effects in the path from organization–employee communal relationship to employee vaccine acceptance through perceived collective responsibility (0.326, p < .01), supporting H8. The results also suggested sequential mediation effects. The influence of organizational informing/listening on employee vaccine acceptance can be first mediated by the perceptions of organization–employee communal relationship and then mediated by perceived responsibility (informing: 0.121, p = .039; listening: .132, p = .038). Please see the graphical model below for the results.

graphic file with name 10.1177_23294884231171773-fig2.jpg

Open in a new tab

The results of structural equation modeling.

Note. All path coefficients are standardized. Dotted lines represent nonsignificant relationship.

*p<.001.

To answer the research question, we first segmented a total sample of 505 into four groups based on the scores of perceived organizational informing and listening by using a four-group k-means cluster analysis process. This approach has been used to determine group membership in previous research (Li et al., 2020) because such tool categorizes participants into groups, in which “the degree of association is strong between members of the same cluster and weak between members of different clusters” (p. 15). Four clusters were formed to create the four employee groups. Organizational informing (F (3, 501) = 550.25, p < .001) and listening (F (3, 501) = 488.39, p < .001) were significantly associated with the cluster classification. See Figure 2 for the segmentation.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Segmentation of employees based on the type of internal communication practices.

A total of 241 participants were categorized into group 1 (strong informing and strong listening), 75 participants in group 2 (weak informing and strong listening), 89 participants into group 3 (strong informing and weak listening), and 100 participants in group 4 (weak informing and weak listening). Descriptive statistics regarding perceived organizational informing and listening by groups were summarized in Table 4. According to the results of MANOVA, significant differences were found across four groups in terms of employees’ perceived communal relationships with the organizations (F(3,501) = 130.720, MSE = 1.164, p < .001), collective responsibility (F(3,501) = 17.493, MSE = 2.364, p < .001), and vaccine acceptance (F(3,501) = 7.870, MSE = 2.908, p < .001) at the α level of .05. We further conducted Tukey’s tests to examine whether organization–employee communal relationship, collective responsibility, and vaccine acceptance are significantly different among the four groups. As shown in Table 5, the results indicated that employees in group 1, where they perceived strong organizational informing and listening practices simultaneously, are more likely to develop communal relationships with their organizations, perceive responsibility to protect others in the workplace via the vaccination, and accept the vaccination than other groups. A significant difference was observed between group 2 (weak informing, strong listening) and group 3 (strong informing, weak listening), and between group 2 (weak informing, strong listening) and group 4 (weak informing, weak listening) in terms of organization–employee communal relationship. However, no differences were observed across the three groups in terms of perceived responsibility and vaccine acceptance. Implications will be discussed.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics for Internal Communication Practices, Communal Relationship, Collective Responsibility, and Vaccine Acceptance.

n Organizational informing Organizational listening Communal relationship Collective responsibility Vaccine acceptance
Group 1 (strong informing, strong listening) 241 5.975 5.663 5.594 5.563 6.109
Group 2 (weak informing, strong listening) 75 3.689 5.038 5.158 4.807 5.427
Group 3 (strong informing, weak listening) 89 5.341 3.397 3.551 4.518 5.125
Group 4 (weak informing, weak listening) 100 3.282 3.198 3.537 4.44 4.825
Open in a new tab

Table 5.

p-values of Tukey’s Post Hoc Test of the Significance in Mean Difference of Organization-Employee Communal Relationship, Collective Responsibility, and Vaccine Acceptance by Groups.

Communal relationship Collective responsibility Vaccine acceptance
Group 1 vs. 2 < .01 < .001 < .001
Group 1 vs. 3 < .001 < .001 < .001
Group 1 vs. 4 < .001 < .001 < .001
Group 2 vs. 3 < .001 .799 .824
Group 2 vs. 4 < .001 .994 .802
Group 3 vs. 4 1.000 .424 1.000
Open in a new tab

Discussion

To identify the effectiveness of organizational factors (i.e., strategic internal communication and relationship building) in motivating employees’ prosocial attitudes and behaviors in the context of COVID-19 vaccine decision-making, this study proposes a theoretical model that integrates internal communication and strategic management theory (i.e., strategic internal communication and relationship building approaches) and health behavior change notions. Consistent with the proposed model, our findings suggested organizations’ communication that involves informing and listening with employees on vaccination make employees perceive communal relationships with their organizations. Both the practices of strategic internal communication and the perceptions of communal relationships facilitated employees’ collective responsibility perceptions in protecting others at work via vaccination. Such perceptions then increased employees’ acceptance of vaccination. This study provides theoretical and practical implications for organizational communication research.

Theoretical Implications

First, this study expands the understanding regarding how the perception of collective responsibility interwinds with organizational factors and together facilitates employees’ prosocial/ethical behaviors in the workplace. Although vaccination can be considered a type of PSOB because it has the intention of helping others and benefiting the organizations, it was not verified as a direct reciprocal behavior from employees in our study as suggested by social exchange theory. The unsupported finding on the direct effects of organizational communication practices on vaccine acceptance may be explained by the classic communication-attitude-behavior change continuum in health behavior change research (Russell-Bennett et al., 2016). This paradigm highlights the typical human responses of behavior change, namely, learn, feel, and do (Ray, 1973). Communication then serves as the first step, aiming to provide sufficient and relevant information for people to learn about the problem. What they gain from the communication process makes people feel a certain way, generating certain attitudes toward the problem. The attitudes then lead to behavior change. Particularly when the problem, Covid-19 vaccination in this study, is quite controversial with many doubts from the publics, attitude plays an important role in the unfolding of the decision-making process. Our findings suggested that collective responsibility, a type of attitudes toward vaccination, is an important attitudinal factor that links the steps of communication and behavior change. Specifically, we found that employees who are provided with comprehensive information, feel they are heard, and perceive communal relationships with their organizations indicate more greater vaccine acceptance, motivated by the attitude of a strong willingness to protect others in the workplace. Thus, we expect that the feeling of being cared for, supported, and included by the organizations underlie the indirect relationship between relationship management approaches and vaccine acceptance through collective responsibility perceptions. Such findings echo previous public health literature that featured the mediating role of collective responsibility (Wismans et al., 2021) and supported the validity of communication-attitude-behavior change continuum in the contexts of Covid-19 vaccine communication. These results also demonstrated a transmission mechanism between relationship management and employee positive outcome, verifying the importance of collective thinking and attitude in employee prosocial behavior.

Second, this study advances internal communication research in the context of a public health crisis. The management of COVID-19 has progressed considerably since the early days of the outbreak, resulting in substantial changes in ways that organizations relate to their employees (Ruck & Men, 2021). Scholars recently began research to help organizations explore appropriate strategies that assist their employees in making sense of the crisis and its related changes in the workplace (e.g., Li et al., 2021). However, much of extant research is limited to employees’ coping with organizational change or safety behavior compliance in offices (Lee, 2022; Sun et al., 2021). This study is the first that applies the theory in understanding the effectiveness of internal communication in facilitating employee attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination. In line with current literature that strategic internal communication and communal relationships serve as important foundations of employee positive behavior (e.g., Iqbal et al., 2018; Lee & Chon, 2020; Walden, 2021), this study offers empirical evidence indicating that such practices are also critical in addressing vaccine hesitancy problems among employees. Specifically, this study bridged the theoretical link between strategic internal communication theory and public health literature, showing that strategic management approaches can help facilitate employees’ perceived responsibility to protect others at work via vaccination. Strategic internal communication that includes informing and listening, as well as creating an open and democratic environment in which people can obtain important information while sharing their opinions, can make employees feel valued and supported (Ruck, 2021). Such impressions thus establish communal relationships between employees and their organizations (Lee & Chon, 2020). The results of this study showed that these relationship-building and management practices help employees realize their obligations or concerns for the organizations’ welfare. Therefore, they are more willing to accept the vaccination.

Finally, this study adds to the existing literature exploring communication strategies contributing to relationship-building with employees (L. R. Men, 2021). Our results indicated the importance of creating a listening climate with the provision of comprehensive information in establishing communal relationships and collective responsibility perceptions in the workplace. Although current internal communication theories have greatly emphasized the importance of listening in the internal communication context (Taylor & Kent, 2014), our study showed the equal importance of providing employees with the information that they need while engaging employees in the communication process. According to our findings of the research question, listening helps establish an organization–employee communal relationship. However, without strong practices of informing, such communication practices would barely make a difference in encouraging collective responsibility thinking and vaccine acceptance among employees. Particularly in the context in which misinformation is widely circulated, providing workforce accurate and comprehensive information is indispensable (ILO, 2020). Such findings demonstrated the argument by Ruck (2021), suggesting that one-way, traditional, and transactional information dissemination with the inclusion of two-way active listening and employee voice creates excellence in internal communication management. A large-scaled research from McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm, also reflects our findings. The research was conducted with more than 461 US-based companies to understand employers’ actions in supporting workforce vaccination. According to the report (Azimi et al., 2021), more than 40% of employees in the study said vaccination related initiatives implemented by their employers would significantly increase their motivation of getting vaccinated. The research concluded that the key to such initiatives is to allow employees to receive relevant information, engage in open conversation, and acknowledge their concerns in relation to vaccination, which speaking to the findings of this study.

Practical Implications

This study also offers practical implications for organization leaders and internal communication practitioners. Organizations have faced the fraught issue of COVID-19 vaccine policy for employees. The results indicated that internal communication with an emphasis on informing and listening is important in facilitating employees’ collective responsibility perceptions toward the vaccination. Specifically, leaders, executives, or supervisors should provide complete, accurate, and useful information to their employees in a timely manner, such as the importance of vaccination for the entire workplace and how it may impact the organization and employees themselves. Moreover, they should encourage employees to participant in frequent supervisor-subordinate communication to voice their opinions and concerns regarding vaccinations, as well as seek to understand their needs about getting vaccinated. To increase information accessibility and practice listening, organizations can make use of a variety of features and functionalities of internal communication platforms, such as intranets, in person/virtual meetings, informational conversations with managers, and anonymous employee surveys. Leaders/managers should also be provided with trainings and workshops regarding know-how in having efficient vaccination related communication with their subordinates.

Moreover, perceived responsibility was found to mediate the relationship between these two strategic management factors and employee vaccine acceptance. Organizations thus should take advantage of collective responsibility perceptions, namely, willingness to protect others at work via the vaccination, through internal communication and communal relationships. That is, in order for employees to feel collectively obligated to protect others in the workplace via getting vaccinated, organizations must develop a strong communication style that provides comprehensive and relevant information as well as actively listens to employee needs. They also must establish a strong belief that they care about employees’ wellbeing. Organizations can achieve these goals through internal communication that flows two-way and engages employees in the conversations.

Given that perceived responsibility was an influential contributor to employee vaccine acceptance, organizations’ vaccination-related promotion programs will likely be more successful when they target such a perception. Organizational informing/listening and communal relationships were found to undergird the perception. Therefore, they should be considered by organizational leaders and internal communication practitioners in the decision-making process about COVID-19 vaccination recommendations.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be addressed by future research. First, our data were collected through a cross-sectional survey during the COVID-19 outbreak. This method design, coupled with the SEM analysis, allowed us to obtain solid evidence to verify variable relationships of interest that are grounded in existing theories. However, future studies can use a field experiment or longitudinal survey design to increase our confidence in the causal relationships between these variables as suggested by the theories.

Moreover, following existing literature on organizational communication and perceived collective responsibility, we used a survey method to collect perceptual data on these two factors, along with perceived communal relationships and vaccine acceptance. Future research can use methods such as field observation to gain factual or behavioral data on our key variables such as organizational listening/informing and collective responsibility to triangulate our results. Also, we included both vaccinated and unvaccinated employees in this study. Future studies can test the proposed model with unvaccinated employees only to see whether the proposed mechanism remains the same.

We also focused on organizational informing and listening as two effective practices of workplace vaccine communication given the critical role of workplace vaccine communication in informing employees’ vaccination decisions (L. R. Men, 2021), an under-explored area of research. We recommend future researchers explore how other factors, such as leadership modeling behaviors in vaccine uptake and peers’ vaccine behaviors, affect employees’ perceived responsibility to protect workplace well-being and their vaccine acceptance. Finally, as COVID-19 vaccine boosters start to roll out and future boosters that aim to reduce infections from different variants are forthcoming, future research can extend our framework and examine the implications of organizational vaccine communication in boosting employees’ confidence in taking booster shots and in promoting the collective well-being of the organization.

Conclusions

As businesses look to return to normalcy with workplace reopening plans, encouraging vaccine uptake among employees becomes an important task for organizations across industries. Therefore, empirical insights are much needed to illuminate how internal communication functions can help organizations stand in solidarity and adopt prosocial behavior (i.e., vaccination against COVID-19 in this study) in the fight against the pandemic. Recognizing the paramount importance of creating perceptions of collective responsibility among employees, the findings of this study contribute to existing organizational communication research by highlighting the advantages of organizational informing and listening practices on employee vaccine acceptance within the integrative framework of internal communication and health communication theories. Specifically, our findings demonstrate the importance of effective internal communication practices in relationship-building efforts in such a scenario. Providing timely, accurate, and useful information while creating an open environment for conversations and active listening about organizations’ recommendations toward the COVID-19 vaccination play a critical role in creating communal relationship and enhancing employees’ perceived responsibility. Such a healthy relationship as well as the moral perceptions can lead to a greater acceptance of vaccination. As one of the initial steps toward identifying internal communication strategies for employee vaccine acceptance, this study offers a direction for future research on workplace health communication. Future research may apply the proposed model in other health contexts beyond Covid-19 vaccination to verify our arguments regarding the effects of organizational informing and listening in facilitating perceived responsibility among employees and encouraging other positive health behaviors in the workplace. The results also provide practical implications for organizational leaders and communicators regarding the strategic use of internal communication when it comes to a problem that requires joint cooperation between both the organizations and the employees, especially during a public health crisis.

Author Biographies

Jo-Yun Li (also known as Queenie), PhD, University of South Carolina, is an assistant professor in the Department of Strategic Communication at the University of Miami. As an interdisciplinary researcher, her work blends public relations and health communication research with a focus on the strategic planning, application, and evaluation of communication campaigns that mobilize publics and facilitate health education, promotion, and social equality.

Weiting Tao, PhD, University of Florida, is an assistant professor in public relations from the department of strategic communication at the University of Miami. She specializes in corporate public relations, specifically corporate social responsibility and advocacy and crisis communication and management.

Yeunjae Lee, PhD, Purdue University, is an assistant professor in public relations and strategic communication. She specializes in employee communication, internal issue/crisis management, and organizational diversity and justice. Using public relations theories, She has conducted extensive research on employee behaviors within and outside of work in response to organizational crises and diversity-related issues and the impacts of organizations’ strategic internal communication.

1

We conducted an online pretest with 60 U.S. full-time employees via Amazon Mechanical Turk before the main survey. The pretest enabled us to check questionnaire wording, test survey flow, and measurement reliability and estimate participants’ survey completion time. Pretest participants were excluded from the main survey.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Anderson J. C., Gerbing D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. [Google Scholar]
  2. Azimi T., Heller J., Latkovic T., Sabow A. (2021, April9). Getting to work: Employers’ role in COVID-19 vaccination. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/life-sciences/our-insights/getting-to-work-employers-role-in-covid-19-vaccination
  3. Bayighomog S. W., Araslı H. (2019). Workplace spirituality – Customer engagement Nexus: The mediated role of spiritual leadership on customer–oriented boundary–spanning behaviors. Service Industries Journal, 39(7-8), 637–661. [Google Scholar]
  4. Belsley D. A., Kuh E., Welsch R. E. (2005). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  5. Betsch C., Schmid P., Heinemeier D., Korn L., Holtmann C., Böhm R. (2018). Beyond confidence: Development of a measure assessing the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination. PLoS One, 13(12), e0208601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Blau P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  7. Böhm R., Betsch C. (2022). Prosocial vaccination. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 307–311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bortree D. S., Seltzer T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brief A. P., Motowidlo S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725. [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark M. S. (1981). Noncomparability of benefits given and received: A cue to the existence of friendship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 375–381. [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark M. S., Mills J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 12–24. [Google Scholar]
  12. Duthler G., Dhanesh G. S. (2018). The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and internal CSR communication in predicting employee engagement: Perspectives from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Public Relations Review, 44(4), 453–462. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferguson M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(4), 164–178. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gillis T. L. (2017). Employee-organization relationship. In Scott C., Barker J., Kuhn T., Keyton J., Turner P., Lewis L. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of organizational communication (pp. 789–797). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  15. Giubilini A., Douglas T., Savulescu J. (2018). The moral obligation to be vaccinated: Utilitarianism, contractualism, and collective easy rescue. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 21(4), 547–560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Grigoryan Y. G., Krylov N. (2020). COVID-19 and collective responsibility: A lesson from the smallpox outbreak in Moscow in 1960. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 13, 32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hamel L., Kirzinger A., Muñana C., Brodie M. (2020, December15). KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: December 2020. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-december-2020/
  18. Hu L. T., Bentler P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hu X., Yan H., Casey T., Wu C. H. (2021). Creating a safe haven during the crisis: How organizations can achieve deep compliance with COVID-19 safety measures in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. International Labor Organization (ILO). (2020). COVID-19 and world of work: Impacts and responses. Retrieved 3May, 2020, from https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_738753.pdf.
  21. Iqbal S., Farid T., Ma J., Mehmood Q. (2018). Cultivating employees’ communal relationship and organizational citizenship behavior through authentic leadership: Studying the influence of procedural justice. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 11, 545–555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Karanges E., Johnston K., Beatson A., Lings I. (2015). The influence of internal communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 129–131. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee Y. (2022). How dialogic internal communication fosters employees’ safety behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lee Y., Chon M. G. (2020). Transformational leadership and employee communication behaviors: The role of communal and exchange relationship norms. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(1), 61–82. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee Y., Kim J. N. (2021). On evolving nature of relationship by perspective mutuality: Reconceptualizing relationship typology between organization and its publics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98(1), 148–178. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee Y., Queenie Li J. Y. (2020). The value of internal communication in enhancing employees’ health information disclosure intentions in the workplace. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101872. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee Y., Yue C. A. (2020). Status of internal communication research in public relations: An analysis of published articles in nine scholarly journals from 1970 to 2019. Public Relations Review, 46(3), 101906. [Google Scholar]
  28. Li J. Y., Overton H., Bhalla N. (2020). Communicative action and supportive behaviors for environmental CSR practices: An attitude-based segmentation approach. Corporate Communications An International Journal, 25(2), 171–186. [Google Scholar]
  29. Li J. Y., Sun R., Tao W., Lee Y. (2021). Employee coping with organizational change in the face of a pandemic: The role of transparent internal communication. Public Relations Review, 47(1), 101984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Machingaidze S., Wiysonge C. S. (2021). Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Natural Medicines, 27(8), 1338–1339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Macnamara J. (2016). Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(3-4), 146–169. [Google Scholar]
  32. Macnamara J. (2020). Corporate listening: Unlocking insights from VOC, VOE and VOS for mutual benefits. Corporate Communications An International Journal, 25(3), 377–393. [Google Scholar]
  33. McNeely B. L., Meglino B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 836–844. [Google Scholar]
  34. Men L. R. (2014). Why leadership matters to internal communication: Linking transformational leadership, symmetrical communication, and employee outcomes. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 256–279. [Google Scholar]
  35. Men L. R. (2021, April14). Four ways companies can effectively communicate with employees about the COVID-19 vaccine. Institute for Public Relations. https://instituteforpr.org/four-ways-companies-can-effectively-communicate-with-their-employees-about-the-covid-19-vaccine/
  36. Men R. L., Bowen S. A. (2016). Excellence in internal communication management. Business Expert Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Miller S. (2007). Joint action: The individual strikes back. In Tsohatzidis S. (Ed.), Intentional acts and institutional facts (pp. 73–92). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  38. Myers L. B., Goodwin R. (2011). Determinants of adults' intention to vaccinate against pandemic swine flu. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Omilion-Hodges L. M., Baker C. R. (2014). Everyday talk and convincing conversations: Utilizing strategic internal communication. Business Horizons, 57(3), 435–445. [Google Scholar]
  40. Qin Y. S., Men L. R. (2022). Why does listening matter inside the organization? The impact of internal listening on employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 33, 365–386. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rawlins B. (2008). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71–99. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ray M. L. (1973). Marketing communication and the hierarchy-of-effects. In Clarke P. (Ed.), New models for mass communication research (pp. 146–175). SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  43. Reader T. W., Mearns K., Lopes C., Kuha J. (2017). Organizational support for the workforce and employee safety citizenship behaviors: A social exchange relationship. Human Relations, 70(3), 362–385. [Google Scholar]
  44. Reed K., Goolsby J. R., Johnston M. K. (2016). Extracting meaning and relevance from work: The potential connection between the listening environment and employee’s organizational identification and commitment. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(3), 326–342. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rich B. L., Lepine J. A., Crawford E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ruck K. (2020). Exploring internal communication: Towards informed employee voice (4th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruck K. (2021). Employee voice and internal listening: Towards dialogue in the workplace. In Men L. R., Tkalac V. (Eds.), Current trends and issues in internal communication. (pp. 93–111). Palgrave Macmillan. New Perspectives in Organizational Communication. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ruck K., Men L. R. (2021). Guest editorial: Internal communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Communication Management, 25(3), 185–195. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ruck K., Welch M. (2012). Valuing internal communication; management and employee perspectives. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 294–302. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ruck K., Welch M., Menara B. (2017). Employee voice: An antecedent to organisational engagement? Public Relations Review, 43(5), 904–914. [Google Scholar]
  51. Russell-Bennett R., Leo C., Rundle-Thiele S., Drennan J. (2016). A hierarchy-of-effects approach to designing a social marketing game. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 28(2), 105–128. [Google Scholar]
  52. Saks A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. [Google Scholar]
  53. Salmon D. A., Omer S. B. (2006). Individual freedoms versus collective responsibility: Immunization decision-making in the face of occasionally competing values. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 3(1), 1–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Sarathchandra D., Navin M. C., Largent M. A., McCright A. M. (2018). A survey instrument for measuring vaccine acceptance. Preventive Medicine, 109, 1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Small D. A., Simonsohn U. (2008). Friends of victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 532–542. [Google Scholar]
  56. Song B., Tao W. (2022). Unpack the relational and behavioral outcomes of internal CSR: Highlighting dialogic communication and managerial facilitation. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102153. [Google Scholar]
  57. Stevens J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sun R., Li J.-Y. Q., Lee Y., Tao W. (2021). The role of symmetrical internal communication in improving employee experiences and organizational identification during COVID-19 pandemic-induced organizational change. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. 10.1177/23294884211050628. [DOI]
  59. Tagini S., Brugnera A., Ferrucci R., Priori A., Compare A., Parolin L., Pravettoni G., Silani V., Poletti B. (2022). Behind the scenes of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Psychological predictors in an Italian community sample. Vaccines, 10(7), 1158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Taylor M., Kent M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398. [Google Scholar]
  61. Thelen P. D. (2021). Employee advocates: Unlocking their power through internal communication. In Men L. R., Tkalac V. (Eds.), Current trends and issues in internal communication (pp. 75–92). Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  62. Verweij M., Dawson A. (2019). Sharing responsibility: responsibility for health is not a zero-sum game. Public Health Ethics, 12(2), 99–102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Vu T. V., Vo-Thanh T., Nguyen N. P., Nguyen D. V., Chi H. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic: Workplace safety management practices, job insecurity, and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Safety Science, 145, 105527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Walden J. A. (2021). Enhancing employee well-being through internal communication. In Men L. R., Tkalac V. (Eds.), Current trends and issues in internal communication (pp. 149–163). Palgrave Macmillan. New Perspectives in Organizational Communication. [Google Scholar]
  65. Welch M., Jackson P. R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Communications An International Journal, 12(2), 177–198. [Google Scholar]
  66. White C., Vanc A., Stafford G. (2010). Internal communication, information satisfaction, and sense of community: The effect of personal influence. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(1), 65–84. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wismans A., Thurik R., Baptista R., Dejardin M., Janssen F., Franken I. (2021). Correction: Psychological characteristics and the mediating role of the 5C model in explaining students’ COVID-19 vaccination intention. PLoS One, 16(11), e0259922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Yang S. U., Kang M., Cha H. (2015). A study on dialogic communication, trust, and distrust: Testing a scale for measuring organization–public dialogic communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 175–192. [Google Scholar]
  69. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara P., Guerra-Baez R. (2016). Exploring the influence of ethical climate on employee compassion in the hospitality industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(3), 605–617. [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Business Communication are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES