参与沟通的一个与沟通有关的方面涉及参与的基本性质，以及它是否可以被视为一种态度、一种心理或动机状态或一种人格特质。参与的性质是企业传播者的一个重要问题，因为他们很好地影响工作态度和激励员工的动机。卡恩（1990）提出了三种心理状态对三种心理结构的影响。鲁滨孙等人。（2004）把概念定义为积极的态度。相反，萨克斯（2006）认为，参与不是一种态度而是一种心理状态，而其他人（Sparrow，Balain，2010）认为，参与是一种态度。Macey和Schneider（2008a）把作为一个复杂的网络涵盖的特点，状态，和行为的结构。卡恩（2010）将他的动态参与的概念与稳态（特质）动机观点进行了对比。卡恩形容订婚既脆弱又脆弱，相当有弹性。因此，Kahn的交往观体现了态度型国家和固定的倾向性特质的混合。这种复杂的状态和特质的交往观对沟通者是有用的，因为它强调了员工沟通需要理解和服务内部利益相关者的核心（特质）沟通需求，以及表面（状态和态度）的沟通需求。此外，内部沟通是促进参与的组织条件之一。
One communication-related aspect of the engagement debate concerns the fundamental nature of engagement and whether it can be considered an attitude, a psychological or motivational state, or a personality trait. The nature of engagement is a significant issue for corporate communicators since they are well-placed to influence workplace attitudes and stimulate employee motivation. Kahn (1990) presents engagement as a three-component construct influenced by three psychological states. Robinson et al. (2004) define the concept as a positive attitude. Conversely, Saks (2006) argues that engagement is not an attitude but a psychological state, while others (Sparrow and Balain, 2010) believe that engagement is an attitude. Macey and Schneider (2008a) regard engagement as a complex network encompassing trait, state, and behavioural constructs. Kahn (2010) contrasts his conception of dynamic engagement with steady-state (trait) views of motivation. Kahn describes engagement as both delicate and fragile, and quite resilient. So, Kahn's view of engagement exhibits a mixture of attitudinal-type states together with more fixed steady-state predisposition traits. This complex state and trait view of engagement is useful for communicators since it highlights a need for employee communication to understand and serve internal stakeholders' core (trait) communication needs, as well as surface (state and attitude) communication needs. Moreover, internal communication represents one of the organisational conditions that facilitate engagement.
Pugh and Dietz (2008) consider leadership as a precursor of organisation engagement and organisational effectiveness as a consequence. The communication abilities of leadership teams are recognised as important in driving engagement (Wiley et al., 2010). Communication has been identified also as an underlying factor associated with employee engagement (Kahn, 1992). Likewise, MacLeod and Clarke (2009) highlight communication as a critical factor for enhancing performance through employee engagement. They argue that good quality internal communication enhances engagement as they emphasise that employees need clear communication from senior management to understand how their own roles fit with the organisation vision. Unsurprisingly, they cite poor communication as a barrier to engagement and a cause of disengagement. However, contributions from the professionals on communication disciplines are surprisingly meager given that internal communication is an organisational level intervention which can positively impact employee engagement.
Internal communication in any organisation has been stated to have a correlation with employee feeling of self-satisfaction and their productivity (Clampitt and Downs, 1992). High communication effectiveness is linked to better financial performance and organizational stability (Internal communication effectiveness enhances bottom-line results, journal of organizational excellence, Summer 2006, pp 71-71)
Van Riel (1998, pp. 8-27) gives an overview of the elements of corporate communication as all the communication within an organisation, such as managerial communication, organisational communication, and marketing communication. This informs the employee's willingness to meet the strategic mission, vision, and objectives of the organisation which creates a competitive advantage of the organisation.
Research Design
This section will discuss the research framework propos
