Communicating the Big Picture With Employees: The Impacts of CEO Vision Communication on Employee Engagement

Abstract

Communicating an organizational vision with employees can be critical to help employees internalize the vision, which might in turn increase their willingness to get engaged with the work and subsequently achieve higher goals. The aim of this study is to examine whether and how CEO vision communication could influence employee engagement. This study also proposed employees’ perceptions of work meaningfulness and organizational identification as the potential underlying mechanism that mediates the relationship between CEO vision communication and employee engagement. An online survey was conducted with employees across various industries in the U.S.

Keywords

leadership communication vision communication employee engagement work meaningfulness organizational identification

Introduction

A compelling vision serves as a strategic guide for directing an organization to achieve an idealized future state. Vision, as an overarching representation of long-term goals and the higher purpose an organization strives for, can help leaders and employees get on the same page when determining work behavior and decisions. Previous research on transformational and charismatic leadership theories have emphasized the multiple functions of organizational vision, such as fostering employees’ sense of collective identity (Buil et al., 2019), intrinsic motivation (Conger et al., 2000), and work engagement (Dumdum et al., 2013). These favorable employee outcomes cannot be achieved without leaders effectively communicating the vision of the organization.

Vision communication, the behavior of describing a desirable big picture of the organization, articulating organizational values, and providing a future-oriented direction for the collective (Kohles et al., 2012), is considered one of the most significant aspects of effective leadership (Stam et al., 2014; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013; Venus et al., 2019). Top executives play the most critical role in crafting, communicating, and generating a commitment to the organization’s vision (Men et al., 2020). Leaders need to communicate the organizational vision in a way that matters to the followers and makes them understand, buy-in, and feel empowered to work collectively (Bajic, 2017). The importance of leadership vision communication becomes more evident when organizations are dealing with changes and challenges. For example, in the current trend of remote work in which employees are dispersed and work at different locations, it becomes more important for leaders to emphasize the shared vision and communicate a clear concept of how each employee’s work contributes to achieving the common goal of the organization.

However, simply articulating a vision might not be enough in the current business environment in which efficient management entails organizational empowerment and individual self-management rather than merely relying on a directive from management (Men et al., 2020). Effective vision communication includes the transmission from achieving the overall organizational goal to fulfilling employees’ feeling that the work they do is meaningful. It is a fact that leaders play an indispensable function in the envisioning process, but the role of employees cannot be ignored as they are the ones who ultimately determine whether or not the vision is identifiable, and their actions are the determinants of achieving organizational goals.

Despite the importance of vision in building shared identity and facilitating work motivation, there is a lack of research focusing on the functions of vision from the internal communication perspective. Relatedly, there has been a call for research to emphasize the effects of specific actionable leadership behaviors, instead of examining the multidimensional conceptualization of leadership as a whole (e.g., Stam et al., 2014; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013; Venus et al., 2019). Therefore, this study aims to focus on CEO vision communication and its relationship with employees’ perceptual and behavioral outcomes. Drawing from literature on the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and the social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), this study proposed employees’ perceived work meaningfulness and organizational identification as the mediators underlying the relationship between CEO vision communication and employee engagement. Specifically, employees’ perceptions of CEO vision communication could help them understand the work they do is meaningful, and such enhanced feelings of work meaningfulness could in turn increase employees’ sense of identification with their organization, both of which ultimately motivate employee engagement at work.

Literature Review

Leadership Vision Communication

Vision is defined as “future-oriented idealizations of shared organizational goals that are established by the leader” (Berson et al., 2015, p. 145), which is normally considered an inspiring articulation of an organization’s values and direction for achieving an ideal future state (e.g., Baum et al., 1998; Jing et al., 2014; Sethi & Adhikari, 2012). Vision is an organization’s long-term goal that is abstract, higher-level, and future-orientation (Kantabutra & Avery, 2007; Kohles, et al., 2012), which represents the values and identities of the collective and provides followers with a set of beliefs and strategic directions on how to achieve the desirable outcomes (Kohles et al., 2013; Strange & Mumford, 2005; Venus et al., 2019). Accordingly, vision communication is “selling the future image” and persuading followers that the future goal is achievable (Stam et al., 2014). Leadership vision communication can be used to express the organization’s strategic objectives, beliefs, values, and purpose to internal and external stakeholders. This typically focuses on addressing what desirable future state the organization is aiming for as well as the underlying aspirations of why they exist (Berson et al., 2015).

Over the years, leadership vision communication has received attention with scholars primarily focusing on what makes effective vision communication, such as rhetorical techniques (Stam et al., 2014), communication styles (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996), and leaders’ construal level of vision communication (Venus et al., 2019). Effective CEO vision communication can be summarized in five steps: 1) the CEO talks about the strategic organizational vision with employees; 2) employees internalize the organizational vision; 3) the CEO and employees work together to implement the vision; 4) the CEO helps align employee work with the organizational vision; and 5) employees use the vision as the guidance on their daily work performance and decisions (Farmer et al., 1998; Kohles et al., 2012; Venus et al., 2019). Through this communication approach, CEO vision communication fosters instant feedback, role clarification, participative culture, mutual understanding, and beneficial relationships at work (Grunig et al., 2002; Grunig & Grunig, 1992; Men, 2014). This process enhances the implementation of the organizational vision rather than merely treating it as jargon (Kohles et al., 2013).

Communicating organizational vision is an important component of outstanding leadership (Kohles et al., 2013; Stam et al., 2014; Venus et al., 2019). Stam et al. (2014) argued that vision communication is “one of the most crucial and mysterious aspects of leadership” (p. 1172). For example, transformational leadership entails leaders communicating an inspiring vision of the organization that guides employees in making sense of organizational events (Jensen et al., 2019). Charismatic leadership communication also emphasizes the importance of communicating vision in motivating followers to achieve higher goals (Nadler & Tushman, 1990). Effective CEO vision communication can enhance employee perceptions of leader effectiveness and charisma because leaders who are capable of establishing a collective organizational identity and motivating employees to aim for a higher goal are often considered extraordinary and charismatic (Berson et al., 2015; Men et al., 2021). Such leaders are normally far-sighted and are able to reframe difficulties and obstacles as motivators and opportunities (Conger & Kanungo, 1998).

Vision communication not only describes an ideal future state, but also enhances the intrinsic motivation of employees especially if their personal goals align with the organization’s purpose (Bass & Avolio, 1993). During times of uncertainties and change, vision communication plays an important function in motivating employees (Men et al., 2020; Venus et al., 2019), providing them with a sense of identity (Strange & Mumford, 2005), and eliciting their positive attitudes and increased performance (Jing et al., 2014; Kantabutra & Avery, 2007). Through communicating a shared long-term goal, leaders can present challenging tasks as stimulating, expand perspectives of the job, encourage employees to be more enthusiastic about work, and provide them with confidence and energy to achieve the goal (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Sarros et al., 2014; Shin & Zhou, 2003), all of which inspire a sense of work meaningfulness, identity, and connection with the organization (Berson et al., 2015; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Sosik & Dinger, 2007). Given the effectiveness of leadership vision communication, the following sections further discuss how CEO vision communication influences employee engagement outcomes.

Employee Engagement

Employee engagement has long been considered an important task for organizational leaders, and scholars have been examining this concept from various disciples including business, communications, and psychology (i.e., Macey & Schneider, 2008; Men et al., 2020; Saks, 2006). Multiple definitions of engagement are developed with different areas of focus. Kahn (1990), one of the first scholars who studied engagement, defined it as how individuals “employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance” (p. 694). Applying this definition to the organizational setting, physical expression means the physical energy needed by employees to meet their work requirements. Cognitive expression refers to how employees perceive the work as well as their perception of leadership. Emotional expression refers to employees’ feelings at work, including their positive or negative perceptions of work and leaders (Kahn, 1990). Saks (2006) expanded Kahn’s definition by noting engagement as employees’ psychological presentation of work responsibilities and the role as an organizational member.

Another influential definition of employee engagement is developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) who considered it “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74). Specifically, vigor relates to employee energy while working and mental perseverance when dealing with difficulties. Dedication means that employees strongly get engaged in their job and have a feeling of meaningfulness, enthusiasm, energy, and pride while working. Finally, absorption means that employees are fully immersed in their work and not distracted while working (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Although employee engagement has been defined from different aspects, the common premise is that the definition should include employee energy, involvement, and a sense of connection at work (Bakker et al., 2011; Karanika-Murray et al., 2015).

CEO communication has been considered an important factor that can greatly influence employee engagement. A qualitative study conducted by Ewing et al., (2019) with multiple senior-level internal communication managers from global companies showed that employee engagement can be defined as an employee’s psychological connection with the organization’s values, feelings of empowerment, energy, and passion, along with the willingness to invest discretionary effort in work and serve as an ambassador. Effective vision communication motivates employees to support an organization’s long-term goals and empowers employees through daily work to achieve the ideal future state, which may ultimately engender employee engagement (Men et al., 2020; Oreg & Berson, 2019). Transformational leadership emphasizes the function of vision in generating collective identity (Berson et al., 2015) and enhancing work engagement (Bono & Ilies, 2006). Accordingly, this study argues that the more CEO clearly and inspirationally talks about the organizational vision to their employees, the more employees will feel empowered and motivated to get engaged in work. In essence, vision communication is a bidirectional process where leaders first take the lead by articulating a vision, and then if effective, employees internalize the vision and use it as a motivation for their work engagement (Kohles et al., 2012). Based on the previous discussion, the hypothesis was proposed:

H1. CEO vision communication is positively related to employee engagement.

The Underlying Mechanism of How CEO Vision Communication Influences Employee Engagement

Drawing from literature across multiple disciplines including management, communication, and psychology, this study posits that effective CEO vision communication can enhance employee engagement by inspiring employee perceptions of work meaningfulness and organizational identification.

Work Meaningfulness

Meaningfulness is a psychological experience where individuals feel that they are receiving “physical, cognitive, or emotional energy” in return for their investments (Kahn, 1990, pp. 703–704). More specifically, meaningfulness is when people feel that their efforts are “worthwhile, useful, and valuable” (Kahn, 1990, p. 704), and when work is intrinsically motivating and perceived as purposeful (Rosso et al., 2010). One of the early conceptualizations of work meaningfulness is “the degree to which the individual experiences the job as one which is generally meaningful, valuable, and worthwhile” (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, p. 256). Considered a critical psychological state, perceptions of meaningfulness are subjective and constructed at the individual level through interpretations of work experiences and interactions (Steger et al., 2012). Work meaningfulness is the underlying mechanism that stimulates motivation and interest in workers. According to Steger et al., (2012), this is experienced “when people know their effort works toward a clear purpose within an organization, and when it contributes to some greater social benefit” (p. 352). Conversely, when individuals lack work meaningfulness, they may experience work alienation and disengagement (May et al., 2004)

Rosso et al. (2010) identified four dimensions of work meaningfulness: self, others, work context, and spiritual life. The first dimension (self) is comprised of values, motivations, and beliefs about work, where work values can be influenced by experiences at work and motivation is driven by employee perceptions of meaningful work (Locke & Taylor, 1990). The second dimension (others) describes the role of interactions and relationships with others or groups and the impact on the meaning of work (Rosso et al., 2010). The third dimension (work context) is explained by five sources: design of job tasks, organizational mission, financial circumstances, non-work domains, and the culture in which work is conducted (Rosso et al., 2010). The final dimension (spiritual life) has two main aspects: spirituality writ large and sacred calling to a particular vocation. Similarly, Bailey et al. (2017) proposed four dimensions of work meaningfulness: the tasks we perform, the roles we play, the relationships we build, and the organizations that employ us.

Effective vision communication lies in inspiring employees to realize and internalize the organizational vision (Kohles et al., 2013). CEOs can empower employees by communicating the organizational vision, providing resources and support, cultivating self-confidence, and encouraging contributions, which all play important roles in fulfilling employees’ psychological need for meaningful work (Prati & Zani, 2013). Through communicating a compelling vision, leaders can build shared understanding with employees and align their work responsibilities with corporate goals (Buil et al., 2019). Specifically, one core notion of vision communication is enhancing the meaningfulness of work, explaining why it is worthy of pursuit, and talking about the directions to achieve the ideal future state. This can help employees understand why the work they are doing is meaningful as well as their contribution to overall organizational effectiveness (Geldenhuys et al., 2021). Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H2. CEO vision communication is positively related to employee perceptions of work meaningfulness.

Given that employee perception of work meaningfulness is an intrinsic work motivation, the self-determination theory (SDT) can be applied to understand the association between employee perceptions of work meaningfulness and engagement at work. The basic premise of SDT is that individuals are growth-oriented and have the motivation to actualize their potential, including elaborating their knowledge, cultivating their interests, seeking challenges, and exploring the environment (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When meaningfulness is included in the basic psychological need satisfaction, it mediates the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement (Rahmadani et al., 2019). When leaders communicate and demonstrate ethical behaviors to employees, they experience work meaningfulness, which translates to organizational outcomes, such as positive attitudes, job satisfaction, and reduced turnover intentions (Wang & Xu, 2019). When employees believe their work is meaningful to the organization’s success and have a feeling of enhanced competence and personal influence over their work, they would feel valued and develop the intrinsic motivation to contribute to the organization’s growth. Furthermore, the perception of work meaningfulness can inspire work engagement as employees feel proud, enthusiastic, and immersed at work (Eisenberger et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2006). Therefore, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

H3. Employee perception of work meaningfulness is positively related to employee engagement.

Organizational Identification

The conceptualization of organizational identification is rooted in the social identity theory which indicates that an emotional connection can be cultivated if one identifies the similarities with a group’s values and attributes (He & Brown, 2013; Tajfel, 1978). Ashforth and Mael (1989) applied it to the organizational domain and defined organizational identification as employee perception of belonging to the organization they connect with (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Organizational identification is a psychological connection between employees and the organization when they feel a stable “affective and cognitive bond with the organization as a social identity” (Edwards & Peccei, 2007, p. 30). Accordingly, the basic notion of organizational identification emphasizes a sense of emotional attachment developed by employees when they believe their personal values are similar to the values of their organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel, 1978). In other words, organizational identification entails employee feelings of belongingness, connection, and significance to their organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Employees identifying with their organization can reduce uncertainty at work and gain desirable resources by following the specific behaviors and norms prescribed by the organization (Fuller et al., 2006; Karanika-Murray et al., 2015).

CEO vision communication plays a significant role in enhancing employee feelings of connection with the organization. Specifically, visionary CEOs can inspire employees to relate their own self-worth with the collective organizational identity (Abrams et al., 1998; Kark et al., 2003), which further motivates employees to strive for shared goals (Kantabutra & Rungruang, 2013). When CEOs are able to articulate the organizational vision with employees, it can cultivate employee organizational identification by aligning employee values with the organization’s vision and facilitating employee emotional attachment to the organization (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017; Yue et al., 2021). Effectively communicating vision can help the entire organization move in synch with clarity on how everyone’s work is related to the shared vision, thus strengthening employee identification with the organization from the inside out. Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H4. CEO vision communication is positively related to employee organizational identification.

Furthermore, organizational identification is also associated with employee sense of work meaningfulness. The impact of work meaningfulness on organizational identification can be considered as a reciprocation process (Kahaleh & Gaither, 2007). The more employees feel the work they do is meaningful, the more likely they are satisfied with the job and reciprocate by being more associated with the organization (Prati & Zani, 2013; Smidts et al., 2001). Specifically, when employees perceive their work is personally important, they develop a stronger bond with the organization both rationally and emotionally and be more willing to identify themselves with the corporate values (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017). The psychological experiences of doing a meaningful job can also cultivate feelings of self-worth that ultimately cultivates the sense of organizational identification. The following hypothesis was thus proposed:

H5. Employee perception of work meaningfulness is positively related to employee organizational identification.

The sense of organizational identification can inspire employees to consider organizational goals as their own, develop enthusiasm for organizational growth (He & Brown, 2013), and feel energetic and immersed in the work environment (Karanges et al., 2015). Consequently, it is reasonable to argue that employee emotional connections with their organization can foster their motivation of being engaged in work (Gözükara & Simsek, 2016; Men et al., 2020), leading to the following hypothesis.

H6. Employee organizational identification is positively related to employee engagement.

Aside from the direct relationships argued above, this study considered employee perceptions of work meaningfulness and organizational identification as the underlying mechanism through which CEO vision communication influences employee engagement. It is important for the organizational vision to trickle down to employees who can then incorporate it into their attitudes and behaviors at work. The envisioning effect of communicating organizational vision transmits the shared goal the entire organization aims to achieve, which helps employees better understand why the work they are doing is meaningful and how they are serving an important member in helping the organization achieve the ideal future state (Author, 2021). In other words, CEO vision communication can fulfill employee psychological needs for doing meaningful work as well as heighten their sense of connection with the organization, both of which could ultimately increase employee engagement. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed to test the mediating process (Figure 1).

H7. Employee perception of work meaningfulness (H7a) and organizational identification (H7b) partially mediate the effects of CEO vision communication on employee engagement.

Figure 1.

The conceptual model of the impact of CEO vision communication on employee engagement.

Method

To test the proposed hypotheses, a quantitative online survey was conducted in March 2021. The population of this study were adults who were currently employed full-time with an organization across different industries in the U.S. Participants were recruited through Prolific, an online research platform with verified data quality (e.g., Palan & Schitter, 2018). Qualified respondents were directed to Qualtrics to complete the questionnaire. After data cleaning,¹ a total of 580 qualified and valid responses were used for data analysis, and all respondents received $1 as compensation for their time completing the questionnaire.

The average age of the participants was 34 years old (SD = 9.22), and 65% of the participants (n = 379) were male. About half of the participants (43.1%, n = 250) had been working in their organization for more than 5 years. In terms of their level of position, 37.4% (n = 217) were non-management, followed by middle-level management (31.6%, n = 183), lower-level management (26.2%, n = 152), and upper-level management (4.8%, n = 28). The majority of participants (85.7%, n = 497) had at least a 2-year college degree. Information technology (13.6%, n = 79), healthcare/social assistance (12.9%, n = 75), and banking/finance (10.5%, n = 61) were the top three industries in which participants were employed. Regarding the organization size, 23.1% (n = 134) worked in smaller organizations with fewer than 100 people, 29.8% (n = 173) in medium-size organizations with 100 to 499 people, and 47.1% (n = 273) in large organizations with more than 500 people.

Measures

This study used 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to measure the focal variables (see items in Appendix). Employee perception of CEO vision communication was measured by 4 items adopted from Nadler and Tushman (1990) (e.g., “The CEO of my organization articulates a compelling vision,” α = .90). Employee perception of work meaningfulness was measured by 5 items adopted from Bunderson and Thompson (2009) and Spreitzer (1995) (e.g., “The work I do is meaningful,” α = .95). To assess employee organizational identification, 6 items were adopted from Mael and Ashforth (1992) (e.g., “When someone criticizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult,” α = .91). Finally, 9 items adopted from Saks (2006) and Men et al. (2020) were used to measure employee engagement (e.g., “I am attentive to this organization’s activities,” α = .95).

Results

Regression analysis was conducted to examine the effects of the socio-demographic variables in this study. Results showed that employee position level (i.e., non-management, middle-level management, lower-level management, and upper-level management) demonstrated significant positive effects on employee perception of work meaningfulness (β = .16, t = 3.49, p < .001), organizational identity (β = .25, t = 5.57, p < .001), and employee engagement (β = .30, t = 7.01, p < .001). In addition, organizational size showed significant negative effects on organizational identity (β = −.17, t = −4.27, p < .001) and employee engagement (β = −.16, t = −4.08, p < .001). Therefore, position level and organizational size were controlled in the following analyses.

Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

The proposed model was analyzed in two stages: (1) an assessment of the construct validity of the measurement model through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and (2) an assessment of the structural model in AMOS 26.0. Specifically, all variables (i.e., CEO vision communication, work meaningfulness, organizational identification, and employee engagement) were unidimensional variables and were treated as latent variables in the analyses. The test of the initial measurement model did not show a satisfactory fit to the data: χ²(246) = 1393.39, p < .001, χ²/df = 5.66, RMSEA = 0.09 (90% confidence interval [0.08, 0.09], RMR = 0.11, TLI = 0.91, and CFI = 0.92. Following the data modification indices, three error covariances were added.² The modified measurement model showed a good fit to the data: χ²(218) = 601.82.83, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.76, RMSEA = 0.05 (90% confidence interval [0.05, 0.06], RMR = 0.08, TLI = 0.97, and CFI = 0.97. The structural model with position level and organization size controlled also yielded a satisfactory fit to the data³: χ²(256) = 684.43, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.67, RMSEA = 0.05 (90% confidence interval [0.05, 0.06], RMR = 0.08, TLI = 0.96, and CFI = 0.97, and was thus retained as the final model. All hypothesized structural paths demonstrated significant results at the p < .001 level (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Results of the hypothesized model.

Hypotheses Testing

Direct Effects

H1 and H2 predicted the positive effects of CEO vision communication on employee engagement and employee perceptions of work meaningfulness. Both hypotheses were supported (H1: β = .20, p < .001; H2: β = .51, p < .001), which indicates that CEO communication about organizational vision can motivate employees to become more engaged at work and perceive the work they do as meaningful.

H3 and H6 that respectively posited the positive impacts of employee perceived work meaningfulness and organizational identification on employee engagement were also supported (H3: β = .21, p < .001; H6: β = .58, p < .001). The results suggest that when employees perceive their work as meaningful or have higher organizational identification, they are more likely to be engaged, while organizational identification had a stronger relationship with employee engagement.

H4 and H5 respectively predicted the positive impacts of CEO vision communication and employee perceived work meaningfulness on employee organizational identification, both of which were supported (H4: β = .30, p < .001; H5: β = .43, p < .001). Therefore, when employees receive more communication about the organizational vision from their CEO or have the feelings that their work is meaningful, their perceived organizational identification can be strengthened.

Indirect Effects

A formal test of indirect effects using a bootstrap procedure (N = 5,000 samples) was conducted to test H7. Results showed significant indirect effects from CEO vision communication to organizational identification through perceived work meaningfulness (β = .22, p < .001, 95% CI [0.16, 0.28]), and to employee engagement through perceived work meaningfulness and organizational identification (β = .41, p < .001, 95% CI [0.35, 0.47]). Likewise, the indirect relationship between perceived work meaningfulness and employee engagement through organizational identification was significant (β = .25, p < .001, 95% CI [0.19, 0.32]). The results suggested that perceived work meaningfulness and organizational identification partially mediated the effect of CEO vision communication on employee engagement, thus supporting H7a and H7b.

Discussion

The results of this study are noteworthy in that they not only explain that CEO vision communication can have positive effects on employee engagement but also how this process occurs. In addition to concluding that CEO vision communication positively influences employee engagement, this research found that this happens partially because CEO vision communication leads to employees experiencing enhanced perceptions of work meaningfulness and greater organizational identification. Certainly, organizations want their employees to be engaged in daily work that supports the future of the organization (Conger et al., 2000; Men et al., 2020), and employees want to find meaning in work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Both want their values to align through organizational identification (He & Brown, 2013; Tajfel, 1978). The results of this study connect these desired components of organizations and their employees by starting with CEO vision communication, which has the power to enhance the relationship between both parties and lead to positive and desired outcomes. These findings have important theoretical implications that build on self-determination and social identity theories, leadership, and employee communication literature as well as practical implications for CEOs or communication professionals who counsel and help CEOs with employee communication.

Theoretical Implications

CEO Vision Communication and Employee Engagement

This study revealed the critical role of CEO vision communication in increasing employee engagement. In particular, there was a positive relationship between employees who receive vision communication from their CEO and their reported levels of employee engagement. This finding can be explained by the fact that organizational leader vision communication can enhance employee intrinsic motivation (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Effective vision communication motivates employees to support their organizations’ long-term goals and to conduct their daily work to achieve the organizations’ ideal future state (Men et al., 2020). This study’s findings are consistent with past research because when employees receive vision communication from their CEO, they experience a more “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74) because they feel more energized and connected to the vision of the organization (Bakker et al., 2011; Karanika-Murray et al., 2015).

This study also found a direct, positive relationship between CEO vision communication and employee perceptions of work meaningfulness. This finding can be explained by the fact that when employees have a clear understanding of how their work is contributing to a greater purpose, they experience stronger feelings of meaningfulness in their work (Steger et al., 2012). When employees can identify the outcome and impact of the work they are doing, know that leaders have high expectations of them, and are well aware of the vision they are working toward, they are able to find meaning in their work because they know that their time and energy is “worthwhile, useful, and valuable” (Kahn, 1990, p. 704). In short, as this study found, when CEOs communicate the organizational vision to employees and make them feel that they are a part of achieving that vision, employees have a better sense of meaning behind their efforts.

Additionally, this study found a positive relationship between CEO vision communication and employee organizational identification. Simply stated, as was found in past research (e.g., Author, 2021; Buil et al., 2019) that employees who receive vision communication from their CEO indicated that they experienced a sense of emotional attachment to the organization as the CEO communicated organizational values that aligned with their values. This finding aligns with the social identity theory, which posits that an overlap between personal identity and a group or entity’s values or attributes results in an emotional connection to that group or entity (He & Brown, 2013). Further, this finding builds on social identity theory by providing evidence of the significance of organizational identification in the social identity process. When CEOs provide vision communication to employees, they cultivate the relationship and bond employees have with their organizations (Edwards & Peccei, 2007; Mayfield & Mayfield 2017). By uniquely focusing on vision communication from a specific organizational leader, the CEO, and examining how that influences various employee outcomes, this study extends literature that has primarily focused on leadership communication in general.

The results of this study also provide empirical evidence of the fact that when employees have higher perceptions of work meaningfulness, they are more engaged at work. This phenomenon was found to occur because work meaningfulness is the underlying mechanism that stimulates employee motivation and interest in daily jobs and tasks. In contrast, if employees do not feel that their work has meaningful outcomes, they will have lower perceptions of what they can offer their employers, therefore reducing employee engagement. This finding builds on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) by examining the function of work meaningfulness in the process of individuals living out their intrinsic motivation to actualize their potential. This study found that perceptions of work meaningfulness allowed individuals to exercise that potential, therefore resulting in them feeling proud, enthusiastic, and engaged in the work they were doing. Work meaningfulness, then, plays a significant role in self-determination theory in the context of employee engagement.

Moreover, there was a positive relationship between employees who said they identify with their organization and their level of engagement. This finding extends previous research that found employee organizational identification can result in desirable employee outcomes such as retention (Abrams et al., 1998), commitment (Kantabutra & Rungruang, 2013), collaboration (Scott et al., 1998), and openness to change (Michel et al., 2010) by concluding that it can also lead to employees being physically, cognitively, and emotionally immersed in their work. This relationship occurs because the connection employees feel to their organizations results in increased vigor and dedication to the work they are doing. Lastly, this study found that when employees perceived their work as meaningful, they had stronger feelings of organizational identification. In short, not only do perceptions of work meaningfulness lead to employee motivation and interest, but they also lead to enhanced emotional connection to the organization. This finding implies that work meaningfulness also results in deeper, more relationship-oriented employee outcomes beyond those commonly cited in literature such as motivation, performance, or engagement (May et al., 2004).

Underlying Mechanism: Employee Perceived Work Meaningfulness and Organizational Identification

In addition to providing support for previous literature related to vision communication, organizational identification, and work meaningfulness, this study found that employee perceptions of work meaningfulness and organizational identification partially mediate the effects of CEO vision communication on employee engagement. That is, it is through providing vision communication that helps employees understand the value behind their work and feel more connected to the organization, and this results in enhanced employee engagement. The findings underline employee psychological feelings as an important factor when considering the impact of CEO vision communication on employee engagement. Communicating vision can make employees believe their work is meaningful and they are playing an important part in helping the organization strive for a shared goal. Employee feelings of work meaningfulness and organizational identification can ultimately become the intrinsic motivation that inspires employee engagement. In summary, these findings extend the theoretical understanding of the relationship between leadership communication, specifically CEO vision communication, and employee engagement. These underlying influences on the relationship between CEO vision communication and employee engagement also provide important practical implications for internal communication professionals.

Practical Implications

This research affirms that CEO vision communication can have powerful effects on one of an organization’s most salient stakeholders, employees. Communication professionals who counsel or assist CEOs with internal communication should ensure that CEO communication clearly articulates the organization’s vision and explains how employees are helping the organization work toward that vision to enhance perceptions of meaningfulness. Vision should not be just a vague statement or online slogan that employees need to seek out. CEOs need to deliver the organizational vision in a way that employees are able to receive, understand, and incorporate it into their work. To achieve this, CEOs should communicate the organizational vision clearly and effectively, using language that is easy to understand and relevant to employee work. This can help employees understand how their work contributes to the organization's goals and increase their sense of purpose and motivation at work. In addition, CEOs should consistently communicate their vision through multiple channels and listen to employee needs and opinions. This can help leaders interpret how employees perceive the vision and to what level the vision is inspiring them leading to favorable outcomes. Furthermore, it is especially beneficial when organizational leaders involve employees in the development of their organization’s vision by creating opportunities for them to give feedback and suggestions. This motivates employees to create a sense of shared ownership that may lead to pride and commitment for the vision.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of vision communication cannot be determined solely by its own merits. Instead, it is crucial to communicate the organizational vision in a manner that aligns with and positively influences employee self-concept and identification with the organization. Employees tend to identify with organizations that have recognizable values and a strong, enduring identity. Thus, CEO vision communication should emphasize how the work employees are doing is meaningful to the organization and incorporate corporate values to enhance employee organizational identification. CEOs should communicate a clear and compelling vision for the organization to create a sense of purpose and inspire employees to see the bigger picture of their work beyond their daily tasks. This can help employees understand how their work contributes to the larger goals of the organization, increasing their perceived work meaningfulness and fulfillment. Such perceived work meaningfulness can enhance employee identification with the organization and foster a sense of belonging and commitment leading to employee retention. Plus, organizations with a strong vision will find that this aids in recruitment and hiring as people commonly seek places that align with what is important to them.

CEO turnover is common, so a fundamental strategy of CEO vision communication is to contextualize it in the organization’s enduring value, identity, prestige, and goals. Essentially, CEO vision communication should incorporate the organization’s long-term goals, relay that the organization has high expectations for its employees who are imperative to the organization’s success and demonstrate an appreciation for the work employees are doing. By creating a sense of purpose, meaningfulness, and shared identity among employees, CEO vision communication can ultimately lead to increased employee engagement.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study’s main limitations can be addressed with future research. First, this study is limited in that it is based on employee self-reported data collected from a single source. Future research could integrate perspectives from multiple sources, such as organizational leaders and communication professionals to provide a full image of how leadership vision communication influences employee engagement. Second, the cross-sectional nature of this survey provides a glimpse into employee perceptions of CEO vision communication and work-related experiences at only a single point in time. Moreover, the SEM analysis is unable to establish the true causal relationships between variables. Future studies could use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews and longitudinal research to provide a deeper understanding of the impacts of leadership vision communication. In addition, though this study controlled for position level and organizational size, future research should further explore these variables to understand the complexities behind employee feelings toward their work and how CEOs might communicate differently with employees who are at different levels or adjust communication styles depending on company size. Furthermore, given the importance of communicating organizational vision, future research should further examine specific vision communication strategies, such as communication style, frequency, and channels, and the boundary conditions of effective vision communication.

Conclusion

This study underscores the crucial role of CEO vision communication in enhancing perceived work meaningfulness, organizational identification, and employee engagement. The findings suggest that effective CEO vision communication that helps employees understand how their work contributes to a greater purpose, can foster a stronger sense of purpose behind their work and emotional attachment to the organization. This study also highlights the underlying mechanism of how CEO vision communication promotes employee engagement by examining the inspiring effect of employee psychological state at work. Effective communication of organizational vision inspires perceived work meaningfulness and identification with the organization. By communicating the organization's vision, employees can perceive their work as meaningful and understand their role in helping the organization achieve its shared goals. This perception, along with a sense of organizational identification, can become the intrinsic motivation that inspires employee engagement.

Footnotes

Appendix

Authors’ Note

The findings reported in the manuscript are original and have not been published previously. Authors have complied with American Psychological Association ethical standards in the treatment of our samples.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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.

ORCID iD

Yufan Sunny Qin

Notes

Author Biographies

Yufan Sunny Qin (Ph.D., University of Florida) is an assistant professor in the School of Communication Studies at James Madison University. Her research interests include internal communication, leadership communication, corporate purpose, corporate social advocacy, and relationship management.

Marcia W. DiStaso, APR, is the Associate Dean for Research in the College of Journalism and Communications and Professor of Public Relations at the University of Florida. Her current research primarily focuses on corporate purpose—or how companies create value for all stakeholders.

Alexis Bajalia Fitzsimmons, Ph.D. earned her bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees in mass communication/public relations from the University of Florida. She now works as a strategic communications manager at an agency where she leads social media content creation, partnership relations and media relations efforts.

Eve Heffron is a doctoral student in the Department of Public Relations at the University of Florida. Her research focuses on corporate activism/corporate social advocacy, stakeholder communication, and corporate purpose.

References

Abrams

Ando

Hinkle

(1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(10), 1027–1039.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Bajic

(2017, December 27). Why communicating vision is the single most important thing you can do. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/elenabajic/2017/12/27/why-communicating-vision-is-the-single-most-important-thing-you-can-do/?sh=7f7508241e64

Bakker

A. B.

Albrecht

S. L.

Leiter

M. P.

(2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4–28.

Bailey

Madden

Alfes

Shantz

Soane

(2017). The mismanaged soul: Existential labor and the erosion of meaningful work. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 416–430.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121.

Baum

J. R.

Locke

E. A.

Kirkpatrick

S. A.

(1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 43.

Berson

Halevy

Shamir

Erez

(2015). Leading from different psychological distances: A construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and follower motivation. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 143–155.

Bono

J. E.

Ilies

(2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 317–334.

10.

Bunderson

J. S.

Thompson

J. A.

(2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 32–57.

11.

Buil

Martínez

Matute

(2019). Transformational leadership and employee performance: The role of identification, engagement and proactive personality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 64–75.

12.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

(1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage.

13.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

Menon

S. T.

(2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 21(7), 747–767.

14.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

15.

Dumdum

U. R.

Lowe

K. B.

Avolio

B. J.

(2013). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead 10th Anniversary Edition, June 27, 2013, (pp. 39–70). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

16.

Edwards

M. R.

Peccei

(2007). Organizational identification: Development and testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 25–57.

17.

Eisenberger

Armeli

Rexwinkel

Lynch

P. D.

Rhoades

(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42.

18.

Ewing

Men

L. R.

O’Neil

(2019). Using social media to engage employees: Insights from internal communication managers. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13(2), 110–132.

19.

Farmer

B. A.

Slater

J. W.

Wright

K. S.

(1998). The role of communication in achieving shared vision under new organizational leadership. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(4), 219–235.

20.

Fuller

J. B.

Marler

Hester

Frey

Relyea

(2006). Construed external image and organizational identification: A test of the moderating influence of need for self-esteem. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(6), 701–716.

21.

Geldenhuys

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2021). How task, relational and cognitive crafting relate to job performance: A weekly diary study on the role of meaningfulness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(1), 83–94.

22.

Gözükara

İ.

Simsek

Ö. F.

(2016). Role of leadership in employees' work engagement: Organizational identification and job autonomy. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(1), 72.

23.

Grunig

J. E.

Grunig

L. A.

(1992). Models of public relations and communication. In Grunig

J. E.

(Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285–325). Erlbaum.

24.

Grunig

L. A.

Grunig

J. E.

Dozier

(2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

25.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 16, 250–279.

26.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

27.

Brown

A. D.

(2013). Organizational identity and organizational identification: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Group & Organization Management, 38(1), 3–35.

28.

Jensen

U. T.

Andersen

L. B.

Bro

L. L.

Bøllingtoft

Eriksen

T. L. M.

Holten

A. L.

Jacobsen

C. B.

Ladenburg

Nielsen

P. A.

Salomonsen

H. H.

Würtz

(2019). Conceptualizing and measuring transformational and transactional leadership. Administration & Society, 51(1), 3–33.

29.

Jing

F. F.

Avery

G. C.

Bergsteiner

(2014). Enhancing performance in small professional firms through vision communication and sharing. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(2), 599–620.

30.

Kahaleh

Gaither

(2007). The effects of work setting on pharmacists’ empowerment and organizational behaviors. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 3(2), 199–222.

31.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

32.

Karanges

Johnston

Beatson

Lings

(2015). The influence of internal communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 129–131.

33.

Karanika-Murray

Duncan

Pontes

H. M.

Griffiths

M. D.

(2015). Organizational identification, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 1019–1033.

34.

Kantabutra

Avery

G. C.

(2007). Vision effects in customer and staff satisfaction: An empirical investigation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(3), 209–229.

35.

Kantabutra

Rungruang

(2013). Perceived vision-based leadership effects on staff satisfaction and commitment at a Thai energy provider. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 5(2), 157–178.

36.

Kark

Shamir

Chen

(2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246.

37.

Kohles

J. C.

Bligh

M. C.

Carsten

M. K.

(2012). A follower-centric approach to the vision integration process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 476–487.

38.

Kohles

J. C.

Bligh

M. C.

Carsten

M. K.

(2013). The vision integration process: Applying Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory to leader–follower communications. Leadership, 9(4), 466–485.

39.

Kirkpatrick

S. A.

Locke

E. A.

(1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36–51.

40.

Locke

E. A.

Taylor

M. S.

(1990). Stress, coping, and the meaning of work. In Brief

A. P.

Nord

W. R.

(Eds.), Meanings of occupational work (pp. 135–170). Lexington Books.

41.

Macey

W. H.

Schneider

(2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30.

42.

Mael

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.

43.

May

D. R.

Gilson

R. L.

Harter

L. M.

(2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.

44.

Mayfield

(2017). Motivating language theory: Effective leader talk in the workplace. Springer.

45.

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.

46.

Men

L. R.

O’Neil

Ewing

(2020). Examining the effects of internal social media usage on employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 46, 101880.

47.

Men

L. R.

Qin

Y. S.

Mitson

(2021). Engaging startup employees via charismatic leadership communication: The importance of communicating “vision, passion, and care. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211020488

48.

Michel

Stegmaier

Sonntag

(2010). I scratch your back–you scratch mine. Do procedural justice and organizational identification matter for employees’ cooperation during change? Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 41–59.

49.

Nadler

D. A.

Tushman

M. L.

(1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77–97.

50.

Oreg

Berson

(2019). Leaders’ impact on organizational change: Bridging theoretical and methodological chasms. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 272–307.

51.

Palan

Schitter

(2018). Prolific. ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27.

52.

Prati

Zani

(2013). The relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational identification. Journal of Community Psychology, 41(7), 851–866.

53.

Rahmadani

V. G.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Ivanova

T. Y.

Osin

E. N.

(2019). Basic psychological need satisfaction mediates the relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement: A cross-national study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(4), 453–471.

54.

Rosso

B. D.

Dekas

K. H.

Wrzesniewski

(2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127.

55.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

56.

Sarros

J. C.

Luca

Densten

I. C.

Santora

(2014). Leaders and their use of motivating language. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(3), 226–240.

57.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

González-Romá

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71–92.

58.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.

59.

Scott

C. R.

Corman

S. R.

Cheney

(1998). Development of a structurational model of identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8(3), 298–336.

60.

Sethi

Adhikari

(2012). Impact of communicating ‘vision’ on organizational communication effectiveness. International Journal of Marketing & Business Communication, 1(3), 43–48.

61.

Shin

S. J.

Zhou

(2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703–714.

62.

Smidts

Pruyn

A. T. H.

Van Riel

C. B.

(2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062.

63.

Sosik

J. J.

Dinger

S. L.

(2007). Relationships between leadership style and vision content: The moderating role of need for social approval, self-monitoring, and need for social power. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 134–153.

64.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.

65.

Stam

Lord

R. G.

Knippenberg

D. V.

Wisse

(2014). An image of who we might become: Vision communication, possible selves, and vision pursuit. Organization Science, 25(4), 1172–1194.

66.

Steger

M. F.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337.

67.

Strange

J. M.

Mumford

M. D.

(2005). The origins of vision: Effects of reflection, models, and analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 121–148.

68.

Tajfel

H. E.

(1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.

69.

Van Knippenberg

Sitkin

S. B.

(2013). A critical assessment of charismatic— transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board?. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60.

70.

Venus

Johnson

R. E.

Zhang

Wang

X. H.

Lanaj

(2019). Seeing the big picture: A within-person examination of leader construal level and vision communication. Journal of Management, 45(7), 2666–2684.

71.

Wang

(2019). When and for whom ethical leadership is more effective in eliciting work meaningfulness and positive attitudes: The moderating roles of core self-evaluation and perceived organizational support. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 919–940.

72.

Yue

C. A.

Men

L. R.

Ferguson

M. A.

(2021). Examining the effects of internal communication and emotional culture on employees’ organizational identification. International Journal of Business Communication, 58(2), 169–195.