The study explores the impact of Digital Communication Technologies (DCT) on internal communication within organizations, focusing on employee acceptance. It introduces the Digital Communication Acceptance Scale (DICAS) to fill the gap in existing technology acceptance models, such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), which don’t consider factors critical in the context of internal communication. The research was conducted in three phases: item creation and expert review, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results showed a six-factor model—Interaction Facilitation, Apprehension, Effort Expectancy, Performance Expectancy, Facilitating Conditions, and Social Influence—explaining 79.5% of the variance. Reliability of the scale was confirmed with high internal consistency (α = .918). DICAS allows organizations to assess employee attitudes toward DCT, offering practical insights for improving communication strategies and facilitating smoother digital transformations. The scale also addresses privacy concerns, social dynamics, and organizational support, providing a comprehensive framework to guide future research and practice in digital workplace communication.
AbedinB.BabarA. (2018). Institutional vs. non-institutional use of social media during emergency response: A case of Twitter in 2014 Australian bush fire. Information Systems Frontiers, 20, 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9787-4
2.
AllenM.TitsworthS.HuntS. K. (2009). Quantitative research in communication. SAGE.
3.
Andal-AncionA.CartwrightP. A.YipG. S. (2003). The digital transformation of traditional business. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 34-41.
4.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
5.
BraunS.Hernandez BarkA.KirchnerA.StegmannS.Van DickR. (2019). Emails from the boss—Curse or blessing? Relations between communication channels, leader evaluation, and employees’ attitudes. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(1), 50–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415604453
6.
BroughamD.HaarJ. (2017). Employee assessment of their technological redundancy. Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 27(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2017.1369718
7.
BrownS. A.MasseyA. P.Montoya-WeissM. M.BurkmanJ. R. (2002). Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(4), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000438
8.
Burton-JonesA.HubonaG. S. (2006). The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 706–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.03.007
9.
Burton-JonesA.AkhlaghpourS.AyreS.BardeP.StaibA.SullivanC. (2020). Changing the conversation on evaluating digital transformation in healthcare: Insights from an institutional analysis. Information and Organization, 30(1), 100255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100255
10.
CardonP. W.HuangY.PowerG. (2019). Leadership communication on internal digital platforms, emotional capital, and corporate performance: The case for leader-centric listening. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(1), 1–27.
11.
ChutturM. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments, and future directions. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/290/
12.
CompeauD. R.HigginsC. A. (1995). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 118–143. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.118
13.
DaftR. L.LengelR. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233.
14.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
15.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
16.
DeFilippisE.ImpinkS. M.SingellM.PolzerJ. T.SadunR. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on digital communication patterns. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9, 180. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01075-8
17.
DeVellisR. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). SAGE.
18.
DobrowolskaM.KnopL. (2020). Fit to work in the business models of the Industry 4.0 age. Sustainability, 12(12), 4854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124854
19.
DuttaP.BorahA. S. (2018). A study on role of moderating variables in influencing employees’ acceptance of information technology. Vision, 22(4), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262918800325
20.
EwingM.MenL. R.O’NeilJ. (2019). Using social media to engage employees: Insights from internal communication managers. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13(2), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2019.1575830
21.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T.MacCallumR. C.StrahanE. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
22.
HensonR. K.RobertsJ. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
23.
KaasinenE.LiinasuoM.SchmalfußF.KoskinenH.AromaaS.HeikkiläP.MalmT. (2018). A worker-centric design and evaluation framework for operator 4.0 solutions that support work well-being. In Proceedings of the IFIP working conference on human work interaction design (pp. 20–21). Springer.
24.
KaiserH. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233
25.
KallaH. K. (2005). Integrated internal communications: A multidisciplinary perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280510630106
26.
KimH. W.ChanH. C.GuptaS. (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009
27.
KimY.KimS. S. (2018). Job insecurity and depression among automobile sales workers: a longitudinal study in South Korea. American journal of industrial medicine, 61(2), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22805
KironD.KaneG. C.PalmerD.PhillipsA. N.BuckleyN. (2016). Aligning the organization for its digital future. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(1), 3–27.
30.
KreijnsK.HenderikxM.WeidlichJ. (2021). Measuring social space in online group learning: Preliminary validation of the social space scale using the Rasch analysis approach. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 445–458). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
31.
KrishnaA. (2022). Employee-organization identity fusion: Connecting leadership and symmetrical internal communication to identity- and engagement-related outcomes. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(4), 1–29.
32.
LeeY.KozarK. A.LarsenK. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 752–780. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01250
33.
LiaoZ.LandryR. (2000, January). An empirical study on organizational acceptance of new information systems in a commercial bank environment. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 7). IEEE.
34.
LittleT. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
35.
MadsenV. T. (2020). Communicative leadership on internal social media: A way to employee engagement? In Tkalac VerčičA.TenchR.EinwillerS. (Eds.), Joy. Using strategic communication to improve well-being and organizational success (pp. 93–114). Emerald Publishing Limited.
36.
MarlerJ. H.BoudreauJ. W. (2017). An evidence-based review of HR analytics. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1244699
McCroskeyJ. C.YoungT. J. (1979). The use and abuse of factor analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research, 5, 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/5.4.375
39.
MenL. R. (2021). Evolving research and practices in internal communication. In MenL. R.VerčičA. T. (Eds.), Current trends and issues in internal communication – Theory and practice (pp. 1–18). Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
MenL. R.BowenS. A. (2017). Excellence in internal communication management. Business Expert Press.
41.
MolinoM.CorteseC. G.GhislieriC. (2020). The promotion of technology acceptance and work engagement in Industry 4.0: From personal resources to information and training. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2438. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072438
42.
MyersT. A. (2011). Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2011.62440
RogersE. M. (1995). Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 21(7), 324–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1070-3241(16)30098-8
SchraederM.SwamidassP. M.MorrisonR. (2006). Employee involvement, attitudes and reactions to technology changes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(3), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190601200306
47.
SebastianI. M.RossJ. W.BeathC.MockerM.MoloneyK. G.FonstadN. O. (2020). How big old companies navigate digital transformation. In Strategic information management (pp. 133–150). Routledge.
48.
ShaoZ.LiX. (2022). The influences of three task characteristics on innovative use of malleable IT: An extension of adaptive structuration theory for individuals. Information & Management, 59(3), 103597.
49.
SunR.LiJ.-Y. Q.LeeY.TaoW. (2021). The role of symmetrical internal communication in improving employee experiences and organizational identification during COVID-19 pandemic-induced organizational change. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(4), 1398-1426.
50.
TeeceD. J. (2017). Dynamic capabilities and (digital) platform lifecycles. In Entrepreneurship, innovation, and platforms (Vol. 37, pp. 211–225). Emerald Publishing Limited.
51.
ThompsonB.DanielL. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056002001
52.
Tkalac VerčičA. (2019). Internal communication with a global perspective. In SrirameshK.VerčičD. (Eds.), The global public relations handbook: Theory research and practice (pp. 195–2004). Routledge.
53.
Tkalac VerčičA.ŠpoljarićA. (2020). Managing internal communication: How the choice of channels affects internal communication satisfaction. Public Relations Review, 46(3), 101926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101926
54.
Tkalac VerčičA.GalićZ.ŽnidarK. (2021). 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.
55.
Tkalac VerčičA.VerčičD.ŠpoljarićA. (2023). Internal communication and employer brands. Routledge.
56.
Tkalac VerčičA.VerčičD.SrirameshK. (2012). Internbal communication: Definition, parameters, and the future. Public relations review38, 233–230, https://.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.019
57.
Tkalac VerčičA.VerčičD.ČožS.ŠpoljarićA. (2024). A systematic review of digital internal communication. Public Relations Review, 50(1), 102400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102400
58.
TrenerryB.ChngS.WangY.SuhailaZ. S.LimS. S.LuH. Y.OhP. H. (2021). Preparing workplaces for digital transformation: An integrative review and framework of multi-level factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 620766. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.620766
59.
UysalN. (2016). Social collaboration in intranets: The impact of social exchange and group norms on internal communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 181–199.
60.
VallerandR. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). Academic Press.
61.
VenkateshV. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating perceived behavioral control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
62.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
63.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
64.
VenkateshV.ThongJ. Y.XuX. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36, 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
65.
VenkateshV.ThongJ. Y.XuX. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428
66.
VialG. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. In Managing digital transformation (pp. 13–66). Springer.
67.
VieitezJ. C.CarcíaA. D. L. T.RodríguezM. T. V. (2001). Perception of job security in a process of technological change: Its influence on psychological well-being. Behavior & Information Technology, 20, 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110048044
WangS. K.HsuH. Y.CampbellT.CosterD. C.LonghurstM. (2014). An investigation of middle school science teachers and students use of technology inside and outside of classrooms: Considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy than their teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 637–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9355-4
70.
WarnerK. S.WägerM. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001
71.
WelchM. (2012). Appropriateness and acceptability: Employee perspectives of internal communication. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.017
72.
WelchM.JacksonP. R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710744847
73.
WilmsK. L.MeskeC.StieglitzS.DeckerH.FröhlichL.JendroschN.RudolphD. (2017). Digital transformation in higher education–new cohorts, new requirements? In Proceedings of the twenty-third americas conference on information systems (pp. 1–10).
74.
WuerschL.NeherA.PeterM. K. (2023). Digital internal communication: An interplay of socio-technical elements. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(3), 614–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12368
75.
ZerfassA.MorenoÁ.TenchR.VerčičD.BuhmannA. (2022). European communication monitor 2022: Exploring diversity and empathic leadership, DCT, and consulting in communications: Results of a survey in 43 countries. EUPRERA-European Public Relations Education and Research Association.
