Reframing Internal Communication: Cross-Cultural Links to Engagement and Life Satisfaction

Abstract

This study investigates whether internal communication satisfaction (ICS) operates consistently across cultural contexts and how it connects organizational and technological conditions to employee engagement (EE) and life satisfaction (LS). Guided by Social Exchange Theory and the Media Affordances Perspective, we tested a process model in Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom (N = 1,458). ICS was examined as an outcome of perceived organizational support (POS), psychological contract fulfillment (PCF), and digital communication acceptance (DCA), and as a predictor of EE and LS. We further hypothesized cultural moderation, expecting stronger POS–ICS links in hierarchical societies and stronger ICS–EE effects in individualistic contexts. Using a three-wave survey and country-level regressions, results show that all modeled paths are statistically significant, though only two of five cultural hypotheses are supported. POS relates more strongly to ICS in high power distance contexts, while ICS relates more strongly to EE in individualistic settings.

Keywords

cross-cultural communication digital communication acceptance employee engagement internal communication internal communication satisfaction life satisfaction media affordances social exchange theory

Introduction

The intersection of internal communication and national culture has become increasingly important in the context of globalization, hybrid work, and culturally diverse workforces. Employees rarely operate within homogeneous environments; instead, they bring divergent value systems, linguistic repertoires, and communicative norms into organizational life (Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta, 2012; Sriramesh, 2019). These cultural differences shape how individuals interpret managerial messages, negotiate meaning with colleagues, and assess the communicative environment of their workplace (Adler, 2002; Mogea, 2023). Despite this complexity, internal communication functions are often standardized across organizations, with a focus on transmitting centrally defined culture, vision, and mission, and optimizing formal communication channels (Apud & Apud-Martinez, 2008). These practices tend to emphasize visible aspects of organizational culture—those that are easier to manage and align—while overlooking deeper, more enduring cultural values tied to national identity (Hofstede et al., 2010). This conventional approach risks obscuring the interpretive variability that arises in multicultural and multilingual settings, particularly in cross-border collaboration and virtual teamwork (Neill & Jiang, 2017; Stohl, 2000). Understanding internal communication in such contexts requires more than analyzing message content or delivery formats, it requires attention to how communicative conditions interact with culturally shaped expectations, values, and assumptions.

ICS offers a valuable lens for understanding how employees experience organizational communication. It captures employees’ subjective evaluation of whether communication is clear, adequate, timely, and useful (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2023). Previous research has shown that ICS is shaped by multiple antecedents, including perceived organizational support, psychological contract fulfillment, and acceptance of digital communication technologies (Sinčić Ćorić et al., 2020; Tkalac Verčič et al., 2021). ICS has also been positively associated with key outcomes such as EE and LS. These relationships are grounded in Social Exchange Theory, which emphasizes the role of perceived fairness and reciprocity in shaping organizational commitment and motivation (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), and the Media Affordances Perspective, which explains how users assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of communication technologies in context (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Together, these frameworks provide a basis for examining how organizational and technological conditions influence employees’ communicative experiences and their broader psychological outcomes.

Despite growing research on internal communication, many studies continue to treat communicative processes and outcomes as culturally neutral, assuming that similar practices will yield comparable effects across employees regardless of cultural background. This assumption overlooks longstanding evidence that culture shapes how individuals interpret support, reciprocity, hierarchy, and communication norms (Adler, 2002; Sriramesh, 2009). For example, what constitutes supportive communication may differ between high- and low-power distance contexts (Apud & Apud-Martinez, 2008), and expectations around media appropriateness can vary based on cultural orientations such as collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, or directness (Mogea, 2023; Triandis & Singelis, 1998). These differences suggest that internal communication is not passively received but actively interpreted through culturally shaped frameworks. When these frameworks are overlooked, communication practices may misalign with employees’ expectations, reducing the effectiveness of even well-intentioned efforts (Ravazzani, 2016; Stohl, 2000).

Incorporating culture into internal communication research requires more than adding demographic controls or statistical moderators. It introduces a critical theoretical lens for understanding how communication processes function in different organizational settings. While the broader communication literature has long recognized that cultural environments shape norms, expectations, and interpretations, internal communication studies rarely examine whether established process models, including those involving ICS, EE, and LS, operate differently across cultural contexts. This study addresses that gap by testing a validated model of ICS and its outcomes in four national contexts. Rather than modeling culture as an individual-level moderator, we compare effect sizes across country-specific regressions and interpret variation through Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions, specifically power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity (Hofstede, 2001). These dimensions serve as interpretive heuristics for understanding why certain predictors, such as perceived support, psychological agreement and digital acceptance, may matter more in some cultural settings than others. This approach treats culture not as a fixed trait or statistical construct, but as an environmental and interpretive condition that shapes how communication is evaluated and responded to.

This study contributes to internal communication theory by developing and testing a cross-national process model of how employees experience communication in organizations. The model links perceived organizational support, psychological contract fulfillment, and digital communication acceptance of ICS, and in turn to EE and LS. Using three-wave survey data from four countries, we validate this structure and examine where it holds consistently and where it varies. The findings show that some relationships, such as the role of support and communication satisfaction, are shaped by national values, while others are more stable. In doing so, the study offers a theoretical framework that positions ICS as a key mechanism linking organizational and technological conditions to employee outcomes, and it integrates cultural context as a boundary condition. Rather than treating culture as a control variable, we argue that it serves as an interpretive lens that shapes how support, obligation, and technology are evaluated in different environments. This approach extends both Social Exchange Theory and the Media Affordances Perspective and contributes a context-sensitive model of internal communication in multinational settings.

Literature Review

Internal Communication Satisfaction: Concept and Relevance

Internal communication is a well-established area of academic inquiry that draws on multiple disciplinary traditions, including organizational communication, management, psychology, and public relations. While originally associated with interpersonal and small-group processes studied within speech communication (Jablin & Putnam, 2001), the field has expanded to encompass broader organizational dynamics, including the role of communication in coordination, control, identity construction, and employee alignment. In recent years, internal communication has received growing scholarly attention as organizations confront challenges related to digitalization, dispersed workforces, and evolving employee expectations (Lee & Yue, 2020; Mazzei, 2010; Men & Yue, 2019). Researchers have explored how internal communication shapes not only the dissemination of information but also relational trust, perceptions of support, and organizational identification (Men, 2014; Ruck & Welch, 2012; Welch & Jackson, 2007). Despite methodological and theoretical diversity, research in this area shares a central concern with how employees experience and interpret organizational communication. Internal communication has been defined as the management of communication between an organization and its members to inform, motivate, engage, and co-create meanings, with the aim of making organizations more effective (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2023).

Within this body of work, ICS has emerged as a key construct for understanding how employees perceive and evaluate communication in their organizations. Rather than focusing on structural features or managerial intent, ICS captures employees’ subjective assessments of how clear, timely, adequate, and useful communication is in practice (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2023). As an attitudinal construct, ICS reflects how employees interpret the communicative environment around them, shaped by individual expectations, prior experiences, and the broader organizational context. Early research on communication satisfaction emphasized interpersonal dynamics (Hecht, 1978) or message directionality within formal structures (Downs & Hazen, 1977; Goldhaber, 1993). More recent studies, however, have conceptualized ICS as a multidimensional construct linked to broader organizational outcomes. ICS has been positively associated with employee engagement (Verčič & Špoljarić, 2020), trust in leadership (Men, 2014), and psychological contract fulfillment (Carrière & Bourque, 2009). It may also contribute to life satisfaction when communication functions well across multiple levels of the organization (Sinčić Ćorić et al., 2020; Tsai et al., 2009).

ICS can be assessed both as a global orientation and as a set of specific evaluations, including satisfaction with communication flow, openness, accuracy, responsiveness, and access to information (Ruck & Welch, 2012; Tkalac Verčič et al., 2023). This dual perspective allows for both overall and dimensional analyses. Importantly, ICS is not equivalent to technical assessments of communication quality. It captures how communication is experienced by employees, not how it is designed or delivered. Because of this interpretive nature, ICS has become a central variable in empirical models examining how internal communication influences attitudes, behaviors, and organizational outcomes.

Theoretical Foundations and the Process Model

Employee satisfaction with internal communication is not formed in a vacuum. It reflects how employees evaluate both the organizational relationship and the communicative tools available to them. Drawing on a recently validated process model (Tkalac Verčič & Verčič, 2025), this study examines three core constructs that shape internal communication satisfaction (ICS): perceived organizational support (POS), psychological contract fulfillment (PCF), and digital communication acceptance (DCA). These represent distinct domains of employee experience—organizational treatment, relational expectations, and technological fit—through which broader work conditions influence how communication is interpreted and evaluated.

POS captures employees’ belief that the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). PCF reflects whether employees perceive that the organization is upholding the implicit promises embedded in the psychological contract (Cullinane & Dundon, 2006; Rousseau, 1995). These constructs are grounded in Social Exchange Theory (SET), which posits that perceptions of support or fulfilled obligations create a sense of reciprocity, trust, and fairness in the employee–organization relationship (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960; Shore et al., 2009). When employees feel supported and experience fulfilled expectations, they are more likely to evaluate organizational communication as satisfying—clear, timely, and responsive (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2023).

While SET explains the relational and affective dimensions of ICS, the Media Affordances Perspective (MAP) provides a lens for understanding the role of digital communication tools. MAP focuses on how users perceive the capabilities of technologies in particular contexts, such as their flexibility, responsiveness, and usability (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). DCA captures employees’ assessment of whether digital communication tools align with their daily work needs and preferences (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2023). When communication tools are perceived as functional and well-suited to the context, employees are more likely to experience communication as effective and satisfying (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2025). In line with MAP, DCA refers to employees’ evaluation of how well digital communication tools support their work needs through affordances such as visibility, responsiveness, and usability. It thus captures employees’ perceived fit between technological features and communicative demands in their organizational context.

Together, POS, PCF, and DCA form the core of a process model in which ICS serves as a central mediating mechanism linking organizational and technological conditions to employee engagement and life satisfaction. These relationships have been supported empirically in prior research. However, it remains unclear whether the same model holds across different cultural value systems. Understanding the cultural contingencies of these relationships is the central aim of this study.

Conceptualizing Culture in Internal Communication Research

Culture and communication are fundamentally intertwined. As Hall (1959) famously stated, “culture is communication and communication is culture” (p. 196), underscoring the idea that communicative behavior is always shaped by underlying value systems. In organizational contexts, culture influences how employees interpret hierarchy, support, obligation, and message tone. Despite this, culture remains under-theorized in internal communication research, where process models often assume cultural neutrality. This study addresses that gap by introducing a culturally contextualized interpretation of how communication is evaluated within organizations.

We follow Hofstede’s dimensional framework as a heuristic for interpreting cross-national variation in the internal communication process model. While we acknowledge the limitations of Hofstede’s work, particularly its reliance on a single corporate sample and the risk of overgeneralizing national averages (McSweeney, 2002), the framework remains analytically useful when applied reflexively and with theoretical caution. We do not treat Hofstede’s dimensions as fixed cultural traits, nor as statistical variables, but as interpretive tools that help explain how societal-level value orientations may shape employee perceptions of communication.

Culture in this study is conceptualized at the level of societal culture (Sriramesh & White, 1992), rather than ethnic or organizational subcultures. This allows for comparative interpretation across countries while avoiding essentialist assumptions. As prior meta-analyses have shown, national value orientations are meaningfully associated with individual-level attitudes such as fairness, trust, and satisfaction (Taras et al., 2010; Thomas et al., 2003). Following Hofstede and Minkov (2011), we apply societal-level cultural values to interpret variation in how employees respond to organizational and technological communication conditions.

Specifically, we focus on four value dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and individualism (Hofstede et al., 2010). These dimensions are conceptually relevant to how employees evaluate support, control, obligation, and autonomy in workplace communication. For example, in high power distance contexts, hierarchical messaging may be perceived as normal or even reassuring, whereas in low power distance settings, the same message may feel controlling or opaque. Similarly, digital acceptance may matter more in individualistic, low-uncertainty environments where autonomy and responsiveness are valued.

This perspective treats culture not as a variable to be tested, but as a contextual lens through which communication is interpreted. Rather than measuring individual cultural orientation, we examine societal-level values to explain differences in effect sizes across countries in the ICS process model. The aim is not to classify cultures, but to interpret how shared value systems shape the perceived clarity, adequacy, and relational tone of internal communication. In doing so, we move beyond statistical moderation toward a theory-driven, culturally grounded explanation of variation in internal communication satisfaction and its predictors and outcomes.

Cultural Values and the Predictors of Internal Communication Satisfaction

This study explores whether the effects of organizational and technological predictors on ICS vary across national contexts. Building on the framework introduced earlier, we interpret country-level patterns through four of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: power distance (PDI), uncertainty avoidance (UAI), masculinity (MAS), and individualism (IDV). These value orientations shape how employees interpret support, obligation, and communicative adequacy, the underlying constructs of POS, PCF, and DCA.

Across the four countries analyzed in this study (Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom), national cultural profiles differ in ways that are relevant for interpreting variation in the ICS process model. Croatia scores low on PDI and MAS, moderately high on IDV, and high on UAI (Rajh et al., 2016). Slovenia is characterized by high PDI and UAI, low MAS, and relatively low IDV, reflecting a stronger collectivist orientation and higher sensitivity to hierarchy and uncertainty (Dabić et al., 2015; Škerlavaj et al., 2013). The United Kingdom scores low on PDI and UAI and high on both IDV and MAS, indicating a cultural emphasis on autonomy, assertiveness, and egalitarianism (Johnson et al., 2005). Italy shows high IDV and MAS, with moderate PDI and UAI (Johnson et al., 2005). These profiles suggest that employee perceptions of support and obligation may be shaped by broader cultural expectations about hierarchy, reciprocity, and relational responsibility. In higher-PDI and higher-UAI contexts such as Slovenia or Croatia, formalized or hierarchical approaches may be sufficient for evaluations of internal communication to be positive. In lower-PDI or more individualistic contexts such as the United Kingdom and Italy, perceived support may depend more on signals of individualized consideration and autonomy. These national value patterns provide a theoretically grounded basis for interpreting variation in the effects of POS, PCF, and DCA on ICS across countries.

PDI reflects the extent to which inequality and hierarchical authority are accepted within a society (Hofstede, 2001). In high-PDI contexts, directive communication from management may be perceived as legitimate and sufficient to signal support or obligation (Chen et al., 1998; Thomas et al., 2003). Conversely, in low-PDI cultures, employees may expect more dialogic, participatory, or personalized communication. These preferences suggest that the perceived meaningfulness of POS and PCF depends on how hierarchy is culturally framed. Prior research confirms that power distance moderates the strength of exchange-based relationships (Taras et al., 2010), supporting the expectation that POS–ICS and PCF–ICS links may vary by country.

UAI reflects how societies respond to ambiguity, change, and lack of structure (Hofstede, 2001). High-UAI cultures tend to favor clear, timely, and consistent communication, precisely the qualities measured by ICS. In such contexts, deviations from communication norms may be interpreted as a lack of organizational care or obligation fulfillment, weakening the effects of POS or PCF. In contrast, low-UAI cultures tolerate informality and inconsistency and may apply more flexible standards when evaluating communication quality (Gudykunst, 2005; House et al., 2004). Therefore, we expect UAI to moderate how strongly POS and PCF influence ICS.

MAS refers to the degree to which societies emphasize achievement and assertiveness over relational harmony and empathy (Hofstede, 2001). In low-MAS cultures, relational communication is typically more valued, and obligations are fulfilled through emotional attunement, recognition, or care. In high-MAS settings, organizational obligations are evaluated more through instrumental outcomes like task completion or advancement. Because PCF includes both relational and instrumental components, MAS may influence how it is evaluated. Stronger PCF–ICS effects are expected in low-MAS contexts, where relational fulfillment carries greater weight (Men, 2014; Welch & Jackson, 2007). POS, being conceptually closer to fairness and support, may be less sensitive to MAS.

Although Hofstede’s framework includes six dimensions, this study focuses on PDI, UAI, MAS, and IDV. Long-term orientation and indulgence were excluded due to limited theoretical relevance to immediate perceptions of communication. While individualism overlaps with core elements of SET, particularly reciprocity and obligation, we retain it in our framework because it is conceptually relevant when interpreting downstream outcomes (e.g., engagement and life satisfaction). For this section, however, PDI, UAI, and MAS are most relevant for interpreting cross-country variation in the effects of POS and PCF.

Unlike POS and PCF, which rely on subjective interpretations of support and obligation, DCA is grounded in how employees evaluate the usability and contextual fit of digital communication tools. According to the media affordances perspective (Majchrzak et al., 2013; Treem & Leonardi, 2012), key features like visibility, persistence, and responsiveness are experienced in similar ways across settings once technologies are adopted. While cultural values may influence technology adoption, the day-to-day use of tools tends to be evaluated functionally rather than culturally. Therefore, we expect less cross-national variation in the DCA–ICS relationship than in the POS–ICS and PCF–ICS relationships.

Taken together, these theoretical arguments suggest that cultural values moderate the relationships between organizational and technological predictors and communication satisfaction. POS and PCF are shaped by culturally specific expectations about hierarchy, clarity, and relational obligation. DCA, by contrast, reflects practical judgments about communication tools that are less dependent on cultural interpretation.

RQ1: Do the effects of POS, PCF, and DCA on ICS differ across countries?

H1: The positive relationship between POS and ICS will be stronger in countries with higher PDI and lower UAI.

H2: The positive relationship between PCF and ICS will be stronger in countries with higher MAS and higher UAI.

H3: The positive relationship between DCA and ICS will not differ significantly across countries.

Cultural Values and the Outcomes of Internal Communication Satisfaction

ICS has been consistently linked to positive employee outcomes. When communication is perceived as clear, useful, and timely, employees tend to report higher EE (Men, 2014; Tkalac Verčič et al., 2023; Welch & Jackson, 2007). EE, in turn, contributes to LS by shaping how individuals interpret the value of their work in the context of their overall life experience (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2002). This study focuses on EE and LS as key outcomes of ICS and examines whether the strength of these relationships varies across countries.

Cultural values influence how communication and engagement are experienced, and whether work-related feelings translate into broader well-being. In some contexts, employees may view communication as instrumental or distant, limiting its impact on emotional investment. In others, positive communication experiences may directly enhance motivation and connection to work. Similarly, engagement may be more closely tied to LS in countries where work is central to identity and success. These dynamics are shaped by broader societal expectations around hierarchy, autonomy, and personal fulfillment (Hofstede, 2001; Kirkman et al., 2006; Taras et al., 2010).

PDI may moderate the relationship between ICS and EE. In countries with higher PDI, employees may interpret organizational communication as formal or imposed, reducing its potential to foster engagement (Fischer & Smith, 2006; Thomas et al., 2003). In lower-PDI cultures, where egalitarianism and participation are more normative, communication quality may more strongly predict emotional investment.

IDV is expected to influence the strength of the relationship between EE and LS. In highly individualistic countries, work is more likely to contribute directly to overall life evaluation (Diener & Suh, 2000; Oyserman et al., 2002). In collectivist settings, LS may depend more on domains outside of work, such as family or community, weakening the influence of engagement on well-being (Diener et al., 2003; Lu et al., 2001). These relationships are examined across Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom, using cultural dimensions as interpretive tools for explaining cross-country differences.

RQ2: Do the effects of ICS and EE on LS differ across countries?

H4: The positive relationship between ICS and EE will be stronger in countries with lower PDI and higher IDV.

H5: The positive relationship between EE and LS will be weaker in countries with higher PDI.

Figure 1 visually summarizes the tested relationships among the three predictors (POS, DCA, and PCF), ICS as the central construct, and two outcomes: EE and LS. Cross-country variation in the strength of these paths is interpreted through cultural dimensions but not depicted in the model.

Figure 1.

Process model of internal communication satisfaction.

Method

To examine how internal communication processes vary across national contexts, a three-wave cross-national survey was conducted among full-time employees in four European countries. The design allowed for temporal separation of key variables: predictors, mediators, and outcomes, which helped reduce common method bias. All constructs were measured using validated multi-item scales. The four countries (Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom) were selected to reflect variation in national cultural values (PDI, IDV, UAI, and MAS) while maintaining relative comparability in labor market structures and organizational settings.

Participants and Procedure

The final sample consisted of 1,458 full-time employees from Croatia (n = 393), Italy (n = 348), Slovenia (n = 416), and the United Kingdom (n = 301). Quotas applied in each country to ensure demographic diversity in gender and age. Eligibility criteria included full-time employment and at least 1 year of tenure with the current employer. Full-time employees were targeted to ensure consistent exposure to internal communication practices across time points. The sample primarily consisted of white-collar employees across diverse industries. Industry and public–private sector information were not collected to avoid restricting sample diversity and to ensure comparability across national contexts. All questionnaires were administered in the official language of each country (Croatian, Italian, Slovenian, and English), consistent with the language of daily professional communication. Participants reported whether they worked on-site, remotely, or in hybrid arrangements, with the majority indicating a combination of office and remote work. Data were collected by Valicon d.o.o., a professional polling agency based in Slovenia, which coordinated fieldwork through established subcontractor panels in Croatia, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The agency follows ESOMAR and AAPOR professional standards for ethical research and respondent protection.

Data were collected through online surveys administered in three waves over a 6-week period, with approximately 2 to 3 weeks between each wave. Participants were tracked across waves using anonymized identifiers to enable within-subject analysis. Wave 1 included demographic measures and assessments of POS, PCF, and personality traits (as control variables). Wave 2 measured ICS and DCA. Wave 3 captured EE and LS.

Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The study protocol received ethics approval from the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, and all procedures complied with relevant data protection regulations. Table 1 presents detailed demographic characteristics by country.

Table 1.

Participant Profile for the Study (N = 1,458).

Sample Characteristic	Croatia (n = 393)	Italy (n = 348)	Slovenia (n = 416)	UK (n = 301)	Total (N = 1,458)
Gender
Male	165	216	181	153	714
Female	228	193	167	148	735
Age
M (SD)	44.2 (10.85)	47.3 (11.11)	45.6 (10.39)	45.5 (11.3)	45.7 (10.96)
Years with current employer
M (SD)	3.6 (1.5)	3.88 (1.43)	3.55 (1.45)	3.61 (1.54)	3.67 (1.48)
Organizational size (number of employees)
Below 250	263	250	175	114	800
Between 250–1,000	77	83	78	79	317
Between 1,001–5,000	41	50	45	64	200
More than 5,000	12	26	50	44	132
Highest level of education
High school graduate	109	97	83	23	311
Bachelor’s	255	106	188	167	460
Master’s	10	173	52	99	458
Doctorate	9	24	25	12	34
Other	10	16	0	0	35
Job position
Non-management	252	244	108	86	690
Lower-level management	49	75	141	57	322
Mid-level management	81	76	62	85	304
Top management	9	14	37	73	133

Measurement

All constructs were measured using validated multi-item scales from established sources. The original instruments were administered in English for the United Kingdom sample and translated into Croatian, Italian, and Slovenian using a double back-translation procedure to ensure conceptual and linguistic equivalence. All items were rated on 7-point Likert-type scales unless otherwise noted. Negatively worded items were reverse coded prior to analysis, and composite scores were computed by averaging item responses.

POS was measured using the 8-item short version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Items assessed the extent to which employees believed their organization valued their contributions and cared about their well-being (e.g., The organization really cares about my well-being). Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .90 to .94 across countries. PCF was assessed with five items adapted from Robinson and Morrison (2000), measuring whether employees perceived that their employer had fulfilled promised obligations (e.g., Almost all the promises made by my employer during recruitment have been kept so far). Internal consistency ranged from .89 to .93.

ICS was measured using the 32-item Internal Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (ICSQ; Tkalac Verčič et al., 2009, 2021), which covers satisfaction with leadership communication, information flow, feedback, informal interaction, and communication climate. A sample item is How satisfied are you with communication between different departments? Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .95 to .98 overall, with subscale values between .78 and .90. DCA was assessed using the 24-item Digital Communication Acceptance Scale (DICAS; Tkalac Verčič et al., 2025), grounded in the Media Affordances Perspective. The instrument includes six dimensions: usability, effort expectancy, performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, social influence, and communication apprehension (e.g., I find it easy to use new communication technologies at work). Internal consistency ranged from .86 to .90.

EE was measured using the 17-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-17; Schaufeli et al., 2002), which captures vigor, dedication, and absorption. A sample item is At work, I feel full of energy. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .92 to .95, with subscale alphas between .86 and .91. LS was measured using the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985), which assesses general life evaluation (e.g., In most ways my life is close to my ideal). Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .89 to .93.

Cultural context was interpreted using country-level scores on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. National scores for PDI, IDV, MAS, and UAI were used to interpret cross-country variation in model effects. These cultural variables were not included as statistical moderators or measured at the individual level.

Data Analysis

All hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions estimated separately for each country (Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom). Variables were standardized within country prior to analysis. Composite scale scores were computed by averaging item responses after reverse coding where required. The three‑wave design guided estimation: predictors (POS, PCF, DCA) were collected in Wave 1, ICS in Wave 2, and outcomes, EE, and LS, in Wave 3. Personality traits, tenure, age, and gender were initially included as control variables in preliminary models. None of these controls showed significant effects or altered the pattern of relationships among key variables; therefore, they were excluded from the final models for parsimony.

For each country, three OLS models were estimated: (1) ICS regressed on POS, PCF, and DCA, (2) EE regressed on ICS, and (3) LS regressed on EE and ICS. Models used complete‑case data (listwise deletion). Analyses report standardized coefficients and R². All tests were two‑tailed with α = .05.

Cross‑country differences were assessed by comparing the magnitudes of the standardized coefficients from parallel models. Given the small number of countries and the design choice not to model culture at the individual level, we did not estimate cross‑country interactions or formal equality constraints. Accordingly, comparisons are descriptive and focus on the size and consistency of effects rather than significance tests of between‑country differences.

Country‑level interpretations draw on Hofstede’s dimensions (PDI, IDV, UAI, and MAS) as contextual heuristics only; these values were not included as predictors or moderators in the regressions. Descriptive statistics and reliabilities appear in Table 2. Standardized coefficients from the country‑specific models are reported in Table 3.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Key Variables by Country.

Country	POS	PCF	DCA	ICS	EE	LS
Country	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Croatia	4.13 (0.74)	4.2 (0.48)	4.96 (0.73)	4.55 (1.02)	5.02 (1.01)	4.75 (1.24)
Italy	4.3 (0.74)	4.14 (0.52)	4.93 (0.87)	4.48 (1.1)	4.92 (1.18)	4.44 (1.26)
Slovenia	4.09 (0.77)	4.21 (0.52)	4.96 (0.84)	4.36 (0.98)	5.11 (1.08)	4.53 (1.18)
UK	4.37 (0.82)	4.25 (0.49)	4.91 (1.02)	4.87 (1.04)	5.06 (0.98)	4.61 (1.3)

Note. Values represent means with standard deviations in parentheses. POS = perceived organizational support; PCF = psychological contract fulfillment; DCA = digital communication adaptability; ICS = internal communication satisfaction; EE = employee engagement; LS = life satisfaction.

Table 3.

Standardized Regression Coefficients by Country with Significance and Sample Size.

Country	N	POS → ICS (β)	PCF → ICS (β)	DCA → ICS (β)	ICS → EE (β)	EE → LS (β)	ICS → LS (β)
Croatia	393	0.408***	0.143***	0.387***	0.552***	0.329***	0.131*
Italy	348	0.324***	0.131**	0.533***	0.638***	0.316***	0.201**
Slovenia	415	0.484***	0.190***	0.353***	0.435***	0.335***	0.138*
UK	301	0.349***	0.148***	0.500***	0.696***	0.219*	0.227**

Note. Values represent standardized regression coefficients (β) from separate OLS models by country. All predictors and outcomes were z-standardized prior to analysis. Robust standard errors were used.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results

Descriptive statistics for all key variables by country are presented in Table 2. ICS was highest in the United Kingdom, followed by Croatia and Slovenia, and lowest in Italy. The United Kingdom also showed the highest levels of EE, while Italy reported lower averages on both EE and LS. POS, PCF, and DCA were broadly comparable across countries, although DCA was somewhat higher in the United Kingdom and Italy. These descriptive patterns provide initial context for interpreting the regression results.

Regression analyses tested the three hypothesized predictors of ICS—POS, PCF, and DCA—within each country (Table 3). All three predictors were statistically significant in all four national subsamples. The effect of POS on ICS varied meaningfully by country, ranging from β = .324 in Italy to β = .484 in Slovenia. These variations support H1, which predicted stronger POS effects in higher-PDI contexts. Croatia and Slovenia, which both score higher on power distance, showed relatively stronger POS–ICS links compared to the United Kingdom and Italy.

The effect of PCF on ICS was also positive and significant in all countries, with standardized coefficients ranging from β = .109 to .190. However, this range suggests only minimal cross-country variation, providing no support for H2, which anticipated cultural differences in the strength of the PCF–ICS relationship.

The effect of DCA on ICS differed substantially across countries, from β = .353 in Slovenia to β = .533 in Italy. These differences contradict H3, which predicted minimal variation. Instead, DCA had stronger effects in the United Kingdom and Italy—both lower-PDI, higher-IDV countries—suggesting that digital communication acceptance may be more influential in autonomy-oriented contexts. Given this pattern, H3 is not supported.

To test H4 and H5, we examined whether ICS predicted EE and whether EE predicted LS, and whether these effects varied by country. As shown in Table 3, ICS significantly predicted EE in all countries, with coefficients ranging from β = .435 in Slovenia to β = .696 in the United Kingdom. These results support H4, which expected the ICS–EE relationship to be stronger in lower-PDI, higher-IDV countries. The United Kingdom, which fits this cultural profile, showed the strongest effect.

The relationship between EE and LS was also statistically significant in all four countries (β range = .219–.335). However, the pattern of effect sizes does not clearly align with the prediction that EE would be a weaker predictor of LS in higher-PDI contexts. For example, both Croatia and Slovenia showed moderate-to-strong EE–LS effects, despite higher power distance scores. As a result, H5 is not supported.

Finally, ICS also showed a small but consistent direct effect on LS in each country (β ≈ .13–.23), suggesting that internal communication may influence well-being both directly and through engagement. While this pathway was not formally hypothesized, it appears robust across national contexts.

Taken together, the findings offer partial support for the proposed model. H1 and H4 were supported, indicating that the effects of POS on ICS and of ICS on EE varied as expected across national contexts. H2, H3, and H5 were not supported: the effects of PCF on ICS and of EE on LS did not show the predicted cross-country variation, and contrary to expectations, DCA exhibited notable differences in its relationship with ICS. While all modeled relationships were statistically significant, only two hypotheses concerning cultural variation were empirically confirmed. These differences are examined in the following section using Hofstede’s dimensions as interpretive heuristics.

Discussion

This study examined whether the ICS process model is consistent across four national contexts and whether the strength of its key relationships varies by country. Across Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom, all modeled paths were statistically significant, confirming the overall structure of the model and supporting prior research that has established ICS as a reliable construct in internal communication research (Sinčić Ćorić et al., 2020; Tkalac Verčič et al., 2009). However, only two of the five hypotheses on cross-national variation were supported (H1 and H4). These results suggest that while the general process linking organizational and technological conditions to engagement and life satisfaction is stable, certain relationships are more sensitive to cultural context than others (Hofstede et al., 2010).

The observed cross-national differences can be interpreted through the combined lenses of SET and MAP. In low-PDI, high-IDV environments, DCA exerts a stronger influence on ICS because the affordances of visibility, responsiveness, and usability reinforce autonomy and perceived competence, values that are culturally salient in such contexts. In higher-PDI settings, formal structures already define communication expectations, making individual acceptance of digital tools less central to satisfaction. The stronger association between POS and ICS in hierarchical cultures reflects SET logic: where hierarchy is accepted, formal expressions of care and reciprocity serve as clear relational signals of support. By contrast, PCF proved stable across countries because it represents a largely cognitive evaluation of whether promises were kept, an expectancy-confirmation process less shaped by cultural norms. These theoretical mechanisms explain why certain paths in the model vary by culture while others remain universal, turning what might appear as post-hoc differences into predictable, theory-based outcomes.

The results indicate that not all predictors and outcomes of ICS operate uniformly across settings: POS is more influential in hierarchical societies, and ICS exerts a stronger effect on EE in individualistic environments. By contrast, the effect of PCF on ICS appears stable across countries, while the impact of DCA varies in ways that challenge assumptions of cultural neutrality (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Taken together, these patterns suggest that ICS theory should account for cultural conditions that filter how organizational support, obligation, and technology are understood in practice.

Among the five cultural hypotheses, two were supported, providing evidence that certain relationships in the ICS process are shaped by national values. H4 anticipated that the effect of ICS on EE would be stronger in low-PDI, high-IDV contexts, and this was also observed. These findings highlight that both the evaluation of organizational support and the motivational relevance of communication satisfaction are conditioned by broader cultural orientations (Hofstede et al., 2010), underscoring the need to view these links as culturally contingent rather than universal.

The strongest coefficients were observed in Slovenia and Croatia, followed by the United Kingdom and Italy. This pattern aligns with cultural theory: in more hierarchical contexts, formal expressions of organizational support are more salient and more likely to be interpreted as meaningful signals of reciprocity. In contrast, in lower-PDI settings such as the United Kingdom and Italy, employees may expect more participatory or personalized forms of communication, which reduces the relative influence of generalized perceptions of support on ICS. These findings refine SET by suggesting that the cultural framing of hierarchy shapes how support is evaluated in organizations (Blau, 1964).

The effect of ICS on EE was strongest in the United Kingdom and Italy, both characterized by relatively individualistic orientations. In such environments, communication quality is more closely tied to personal motivation and identity at work, making ICS a more powerful driver of engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002). By contrast, in Slovenia and Croatia, where collectivist orientations and stronger acceptance of hierarchy are more pronounced, engagement appears to be less dependent on communication experiences and more influenced by other relational or structural factors. These results extend ICS theory by showing that its motivational impact depends on cultural values that shape the meaning employees attach to organizational communication.

Not all cultural predictions were confirmed. H2, which expected variation in the PCF–ICS relationship, was not supported, as the link proved stable across countries. H3, which anticipated minimal cross-national differences in the DCA–ICS relationship, was contradicted by the data, with notable variation observed. Finally, H5, which predicted that EE would be less strongly associated with LS in higher-PDI contexts, also received no support. These results indicate that while some parts of the ICS process are clearly shaped by cultural values, others appear more universal, and at least one relationship, between DCA and ICS, functions in ways that run counter to theoretical expectations (Taras et al., 2010).

H2 predicted that the relationship between PCF and ICS would vary across countries, but this expectation was not supported. The link between PCF and ICS was positive and significant in all four national samples, with effect sizes that were remarkably consistent. This pattern suggests that perceptions of whether promises have been kept may operate as a more universal mechanism than anticipated. Unlike POS, which is relational and shaped by norms of hierarchy or reciprocity, PCF may be judged more cognitively, based on whether commitments are fulfilled, regardless of cultural expectations (Rousseau, 1995). This finding implies that some aspects of the employee–organization relationship are relatively insensitive to national value orientations, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between relational and cognitive bases of communication satisfaction.

H3 proposed that the effect of DCA on ICS would show minimal variation across cultural contexts, yet the results contradicted this expectation. Instead, DCA was more strongly associated with ICS in the United Kingdom and Italy, both characterized by lower PDI and higher IDV. In these contexts, the ability to adapt to digital tools may be interpreted as a sign of autonomy, competence, or organizational flexibility, making it more consequential for communication satisfaction. By contrast, in Slovenia and Croatia, where hierarchy and uncertainty avoidance are more pronounced, digital communication may be evaluated more cautiously, with less influence on overall satisfaction. These findings suggest that affordances are not experienced as culturally neutral, but are filtered through broader value systems, extending the Media Affordances Perspective by showing that technology use is also shaped by societal culture (Treem & Leonardi, 2012).

H5 predicted that the relationship between EE and LS would be weaker in higher-PDI contexts, but this was not supported. Across all four countries, EE was positively and significantly related to LS, with only minor variation in effect sizes. This consistency suggests that engagement may operate as a general psychological state that enhances overall well-being regardless of cultural background. Alternatively, it is possible that cultural influences on life satisfaction are captured by dimensions other than PDI, such as long-term orientation or indulgence, which were not included in this study. The stability of the EE–LS link implies that, while cultural values shape how employees evaluate communication and engagement, the contribution of engagement to life satisfaction may be a more universal phenomenon (Diener et al., 1985).

Taken together, these findings contribute to theory in several important ways. First, they confirm that ICS is a structurally stable construct: its core predictors and outcomes hold across culturally distinct contexts, reinforcing its value as a central mechanism in internal communication scholarship. Second, the results refine SET by demonstrating that POS is culturally contingent while PCF appears more universal, pointing to differences between relational and cognitive bases of exchange. Third, they extend the Media Affordances Perspective by showing that DCA is not culturally neutral but shaped by value systems that influence how employees interpret digital tools. Finally, the study reframes culture as a boundary condition for internal communication, not a statistical afterthought.

Collectively, these results reframe ICS as a culturally filtered exchange mechanism shaped by both relational and technological conditions. Through the lens of SET, culture determines how signals of support and reciprocity are interpreted, amplifying or dampening the effect of POS and ICS on EE. MAP adds a complementary layer by showing that the acceptance of digital communication tools depends on how their affordances align with culturally grounded expectations of autonomy, hierarchy, and responsiveness. The model therefore distinguishes between relationships that are culturally sensitive (POS → ICS, ICS → EE) and those that remain stable across contexts (PCF → ICS, EE → LS). In doing so, the study advances a context-sensitive understanding of internal communication that integrates organizational, technological, and societal factors within a single explanatory framework.

From a practical standpoint, the findings suggest that communication strategies should reflect cultural conditions rather than assume uniform effects. In higher-PDI environments, visible and consistent expressions of organizational support strengthen employees’ sense of reciprocity and enhance ICS. In low-PDI, high-IDV contexts, investing in the usability and responsiveness of digital communication tools promotes acceptance and autonomy, thereby improving ICS and engagement. Because PCF exerts stable effects across countries, clear promises and reliable follow-through remain essential everywhere. Finally, as ICS most strongly predicts EE in individualistic cultures, organizations operating in such settings should prioritize the quality and openness of internal communication to sustain employee motivation and life satisfaction.

These implications underscore the need for organizations to interpret internal communication not as a uniform practice but as a culturally contingent system whose effectiveness depends on how exchange expectations and technological affordances interact.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations that also offer directions for future research. Because its cultural interpretations are theory-based rather than statistically modeled at multiple levels, future studies should formally test these relationships using multilevel or cross-level designs that incorporate both individual and country-level cultural values. Specifically, first, while the sample included four culturally distinct countries, the analysis was limited to a small number of national contexts. This constrains generalizability and prevents formal statistical comparisons across cultures. Future studies could replicate this model across a broader range of countries or use multi-level modeling to explore cross-level interactions between individual- and country-level variables.

Second, although Hofstede’s cultural dimensions were used to interpret cross-country differences, culture was not directly measured at the individual level. This limits precision in explaining variation, as national averages may not fully capture individual cultural orientations. Future research could include individual-level cultural values (e.g., using VSM scores or Schwartz’s value scales) to examine whether within-country variation moderates key relationships.

Third, all data were collected through self-report surveys, raising concerns about common method bias despite the three-wave design. Although temporal separation of predictors and outcomes helps mitigate this risk, future studies could incorporate behavioral or organizational-level indicators of communication practices, engagement, or well-being.

Finally, while this study focused on predictors and outcomes of ICS, it did not examine potential mediating or moderating mechanisms beyond culture. Future research could explore whether the relationships observed here are shaped by additional factors such as organizational climate, leadership style, or digital infrastructure quality.

Overall, the findings confirm that the internal communication process linking organizational and technological conditions to engagement and life satisfaction is stable across contexts, yet culturally filtered in its strength. By integrating SET and MAP, the study reframes ICS as a mechanism through which employees interpret both relational exchanges and the affordances of digital tools within culturally defined expectations of hierarchy and autonomy. This perspective advances internal communication theory from a universal to a context-sensitive framework, explaining why certain relationships—such as POS → ICS and ICS → EE—vary across national settings while others remain robust. In doing so, the study underscores the importance of aligning communication practices and technological environments with the cultural realities of organizations operating in increasingly hybrid and global contexts.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ana Tkalac Verčič

Ethical Considerations

The study protocol received ethics approval from the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana.

Consent to Participate

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Croatian Science Foundation (project IPS-2022-02-4542) and Slovenian Researchand Innovation Agency (project J5-4584).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Author Biographies

Ana Tkalac Verčič is a Professor of Communication at the University of Zagreb whose research focuses on internal communication, employee communication, and digital change. Her current work examines how communication processes shape employee outcomes in hybrid and digital environments.

Dejan Verčič is a professor and Head of the Centre for Marketing and Public Relations at the University of Ljubljana. His research focuses on globalization, internal communication, and strategic communication.

Krishnamurthy Sriramesh is Professor of Public Relations at the University of Colorado, Boulder. His award-winning research program focuses on the impact of culture on public relations and crisis communication, CSR, and internal and strategic communication.

References

Adler

N. J.

(2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior (4th ed). South-Western.

Apud

Apud-Martinez

(2008). Cross-cultural communication in multinational corporations: A study of Spanish managers in international environments. Intercultural Communication Studies, 17(2), 3–22.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

Carrière

Bourque

(2009). The effects of organizational communication on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in a land ambulance service and the mediating role of communication satisfaction. Career Development International, 14(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910933565

Chen

C. C.

Chen

X. P.

Meindl

J. R.

(1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism–collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533229

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602

Cullinane

Dundon

(2006). The psychological contract: A critical review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00123.x

Dabić

Tipurić

Podrug

(2015). Cultural differences affecting decision-making style: A comparative study between four countries. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 16(2), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2013.859172

10.

Diener

Suh

E. M.

(2000). Culture and subjective well-being. MIT Press.

11.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

12.

Diener

Oishi

Lucas

R. E.

(2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056

13.

Downs

C. W.

Hazen

M. D.

(1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction. The Journal of Business Communication, 14(3), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194367701400306

14.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

15.

Fischer

Smith

P. B.

(2006). Who cares about justice? The moderating effect of values on the link between organizational justice and work behaviour. Applied Psychology, 55(4), 541–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00243.x

16.

Goldhaber

G. M.

(1993). Organizational communication (6th ed.). Brown & Benchmark.

17.

Gouldner

A. W.

(1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623

18.

Gudykunst

W. B.

(2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of effective communication. In Gudykunst

W. B.

(Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 281–322). Sage.

19.

Hall

E. T.

(1959). The silent language. Doubleday.

20.

Hecht

M. L.

(1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4(3), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00614.x

21.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

22.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

(2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

23.

House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.

24.

Jablin

F. M.

Putnam

L. L.

(Eds.). (2001). The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. Sage.

25.

Johnson

Kulesa

Cho

Y. I.

Shavitt

(2005). The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(2), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104272905

26.

Kirkman

B. L.

Lowe

K. B.

Gibson

C. B.

(2006). A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202

27.

Lee

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), Article 101906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101906

28.

Louhiala-Salminen

Kankaanranta

(2012). Lingua franca communication in multinational corporations: An experiment in a simulated business meeting. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.03.001

29.

Gilmour

Kao

S.-F.

(2001). Cultural values and happiness: An East–West dialogue. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600563

30.

Majchrzak

Faraj

Kane

G. C.

Azad

(2013). The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12030

31.

Mazzei

(2010). Promoting active communication behaviours through internal communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(3), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281011068132

32.

McSweeney

(2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702551004

33.

Men

L. R.

(2014). Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership, communication channels, and employee satisfaction. Public Relations Review, 40(2), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.10.001

34.

Men

L. R.

Yue

C. A.

(2019). Creating a positive emotional culture: Effect of internal communication and impact on employee supportive behaviors. Public Relations Review, 45(3), Article 101764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.03.001

35.

Minkov

Hofstede

(2011). The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601111104269

36.

Mogea

J. P.

(2023). Understanding cross-cultural communication challenges in multinational organizations. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884492847

37.

Neill

M. S.

Jiang

(2017). The impact of culture on organizational communication: From conceptual to practical applications. In Kluger

A. N.

Kross

A. S. M.

(Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 385–411). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44699-3_15

38.

Oyserman

Coon

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological bulletin, 128(1), 3.

39.

Rajh

Budak

Anić

I.-D.

(2016). Hofstede’s culture value survey in Croatia: Examining regional differences. Društvena istraživanja, 25(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.5559/di.25.3.02

40.

Ravazzani

(2016). Internal communication in multinational corporations: A typology and comparative analysis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 21(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-07-2014-0048

41.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

(2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698

42.

Robinson

S. L.

Morrison

E. W.

(2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<525::AID-JOB40>3.0.CO;2-T

43.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Sage.

44.

Ruck

Welch

(2012). Valuing internal communication: Management and employee perspectives. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.016

45.

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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

46.

Shore

L. M.

Bommer

W. H.

Rao

A. N.

Seo

(2009). Social and economic exchange in the employee-organization relationship: The moderating role of reciprocation wariness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(8), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910996752

47.

Shore

L. M.

Tetrick

L. E.

Lynch

Barksdale

(2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 837–867. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00046.x

48.

Sinčić Ćorić

Pološki Vokić

Tkalac Verčič

(2020). Does good internal communication enhance life satisfaction? Journal of Communication Management, 24(4), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2019-0146

49.

Sriramesh

(2009). The relationship between culture and public relations. In Sriramesh

Verčič

(Eds.), The global public relations handbook (2nd ed., pp. 47–61). Routledge.

50.

Sriramesh

(2019). Culture: The “silent” language is also the “neglected” language. In Sriramesh

Verčič

(Eds.), The global public relations handbook (2nd ed., pp. 28–38). Routledge.

51.

Sriramesh

White

(1992). Societal culture and public relations: Ethnographic evidence from India. In Grunig

J. E.

(Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 597–614). Lawrence Erlbaum.

52.

Stohl

(2000). Organizational communication: Connectedness in action. Sage.

53.

Škerlavaj

Huang

(2013). The moderating effects of national culture on the development of organisational learning culture: A multilevel study across seven countries. Journal for East European Management Studies, 97–134.

54.

Taras

Kirkman

B. L.

Steel

(2010). Examining the impact of Culture’s Consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018938

55.

Thomas

D. C.

Ravlin

E. C.

(2003). Cultural variation and the psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.210

56.

Tkalac Verčič

Špoljarić

(2020). Managing internal communication: How the choice of channels affects internal communication satisfaction. Public Relations Review, 46(3), Article 101926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101926

57.

Tkalac Verčič

Verčič

(2025). Internal communication satisfaction, engagement, and life satisfaction: A process model [Manuscript submitted for publication].

58.

Tkalac Verčič

Einwiller

Tench

Verčič

(2025). Developing the Digital Communication Acceptance Scale (DICAS) for measuring employee acceptance of digital communication technologies in the workplace. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884251322492

59.

Tkalac Verčič

Galić

Žnidar

(2023). The relationship of internal communication satisfaction with employee engagement and employer attractiveness: Testing the joint mediating effect of the social exchange quality indicators. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(4), 1313–1340. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884221091376

60.

Tkalac Verčič

Pološki Vokić

Sinčić Ćorić

(2009). Razvoj mjernog instrumenta za procjenu zadovoljstva internom komunikacijom [Development of the internal communication satisfaction questionnaire]. Društvena istraživanja: Časopis za opća društvena pitanja, 18(1–2), 175–202.

61.

Tkalac Verčič

Sinčić Ćorić

Pološki Vokić

(2021). Measuring internal communication satisfaction: Validating the Internal Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 26(3), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-08-2020-0107

62.

Treem

J. W.

Leonardi

P. M.

(2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143–189. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203149730-9

63.

Triandis

H. C.

Singelis

T. M.

(1998). Training to recognize individual differences in collectivism and individualism within culture. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00034-5

64.

Tsai

W. C.

Chuang

C. H.

Hsieh

W. P.

(2009). An integrated process model of communication satisfaction and organizational outcomes. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(6), 825–834. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.6.825

65.

Welch

Jackson

P. R.

(2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710744847