Impact of Leadership Motivating Language in CSA: Fostering Employee Support Through Psychological Meaningfulness and Perceived Company-CSA Value Alignment

Abstract

This study examines how leaders’ strategic use of motivating language, direction-giving, empathetic, and meaning-making, encourages employee support for Corporate Social Advocacy (CSA). Grounded in Motivating Language Theory and the Theory of Engagement, we argue that such communication enhances employees’ psychological meaningfulness of CSA and their perceived value alignment between the initiative and the organization. These perceptions serve as psychological mechanisms linking leadership communication to employees’ advocacy intentions, positive megaphoning, and organizational trust. An online survey of U.S. full-time employees revealed that all three language types increased perceived psychological meaningfulness, while only empathetic and meaning-making language strengthened perceived value alignment after accounting for employees’ personal issue attitudes. Both psychological meaningfulness and value alignment significantly predicted employees’ supportive responses. The findings highlight the distinct contributions of motivating language dimensions and emphasize their strategic importance for fostering employee engagement and internal support for organizational advocacy efforts.

Keywords

motivating language theory corporate social advocacy (CSA)psychological meaningfulness value alignment employee advocacy

Introduction

Companies are increasingly expected to take public positions on salient sociopolitical issues, ranging from climate change and immigration to gun control, LGBTQ+ rights, and gender pay equity (Austin et al., 2019; Browning et al., 2020; M. Dodd, 2018; J. K. Kim et al., 2020). Patagonia’s opposition to Arctic drilling (Patagonia, 2023) and Delta Airlines’ decision to end NRA member discounts illustrate how such engagement has moved beyond symbolic messaging toward active efforts to shape public opinion and influence policy (Y. Kim, 2025a, 2025b). Scholars conceptualize this phenomenon as corporate social advocacy (CSA), defined as corporate communication and action on sociopolitical issues intended to influence public opinion and policy (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024). As CSA has grown in visibility, it has drawn increased attention from diverse stakeholders, including consumers, shareholders, and employees (Bedendo & Siming, 2021; Hambrick & Wowak, 2021), and has emerged as a prominent research domain in public relations and business communication (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024).

Despite this growing interest, CSA research has focused primarily on external consequences, particularly reputational risks and stakeholder backlash associated with controversial issue engagement (Rim et al., 2024), while internal stakeholders, especially employees, remain comparatively understudied (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024). This gap is consequential as employees are not only key stakeholders but also direct interpreters and implementers of CSA initiatives. Without employee buy-in, even well-intentioned CSA efforts may fail internally before achieving external impact. Accordingly, recent scholarship emphasizes an “inside-out” approach that prioritizes internal alignment and employee endorsement (Y. Kim, 2024b, 2025b; Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024). When employees perceive CSA as a genuine reflection of organizational values and as meaningful, it is more likely to sustain organizational credibility and resonate externally. Conversely, when CSA is perceived as misaligned or performative, internal resistance can emerge and undermine organizational effectiveness (Yang et al., 2022). Understanding how employees cognitively interpret CSA and come to support it is therefore essential to the success of corporate social initiatives.

To address this, this study draws on motivating language theory (Sullivan, 1988) and proposes that leaders’ use of motivating language in internal CSA communication is central to shaping employees’ perceptions of CSA and fostering their support. Motivating language comprises three dimensions: direction-giving language, which reduces uncertainty and clarifies expectations; empathetic language, which acknowledges employees’ feelings and concerns; and meaning-making language, which connects organizational actions to broader purpose and values (Sullivan, 1988). Prior research demonstrates that motivating language strengthens trust, enhances team dynamics, and promotes employee advocacy across organizational contexts (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2010; Thelen & Men, 2023). Recent CSA research similarly identifies leadership communication as a key determinant of employee responses to sociopolitical initiatives (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024; Yang et al., 2022).

Building on this foundation, this study advances prior studies by focusing on the psychological mechanisms through which motivating language shapes employee responses to CSA. Existing research has largely emphasized relational mechanisms, particularly employees’ identification with their leaders or organizations, as the primary pathway linking leadership communication to employee support (Kim & Meganck, 2025; Thelen, 2021; Yang et al., 2022; Yue, 2025). While important, identification-based explanations do not fully account for how employees evaluate the meaning and value congruence of CSA initiatives themselves. Identification-based support and cognitively evaluative support represent conceptually distinct forms of endorsement. The former is relational in origin: employees may support CSA as an extension of organizational attachment, deferring to its decisions out of belonging or loyalty. The latter is grounded in employees’ substantive appraisal of whether CSA is socially meaningful and genuinely reflective of the organization’s core values, a form of endorsement anchored in judgment rather than relational sentiment, and therefore more stable and more likely to translate into consistent advocacy behavior. This distinction carries particular weight in the CSA context, where employees bring pre-existing values, beliefs, and political orientations to their evaluations of organizational positions (Hambrick & Wowak, 2021). In such contexts, employees are unlikely to rely solely on relational cues; rather, they actively assess whether CSA initiatives are socially meaningful and truly reflective of organizational values. This process aligns with dual-process theories of attitude formation, which distinguish between peripheral processing driven by affective cues and central processing driven by substantive evaluation of the message itself (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Attitudes formed through central processing are more stable, resistant to counter-persuasion, and predictive of behavior than those formed through peripheral routes (Ajzen, 1991; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Identification-based explanations, while valuable, are therefore insufficient to fully explain when and why employees genuinely endorse CSA. This study addresses this gap by focusing on two key evaluative mechanisms including psychological meaningfulness of CSA and perceived company-CSA value alignment. Accordingly, this study asks how leaders’ motivating language in CSA-related internal communication shapes employees’ perceptions of CSA as meaningful and value-aligned, and how these perceptions translate into supportive employee behaviors.

This study makes three contributions. First, it extends motivating language theory to the CSA context by examining how leadership communication shapes employee interpretations of sociopolitical initiatives. Second, it identifies psychological meaningfulness and perceived value alignment as distinct mediating mechanisms, offering a theoretically precise account that moves beyond identification-based explanations. Third, by disaggregating the dimensions of motivating language, it demonstrates that empathetic and meaning-making language play a particularly critical role in fostering value alignment and trust in contested sociopolitical contexts. These findings are expected to reposition CSA from a reactive, risk-laden practice to a strategically integrated organizational endeavor grounded in employee understanding and support.

Literature Review

Leadership Communication and CSA

Internal communication plays a critical role in shaping employee attitudes and behaviors by enabling coordination toward organizational goals and fostering relationships across hierarchical levels (Berger, 2008; Men & Stacks, 2014; Welch & Jackson, 2007). This function becomes particularly consequential in the context of corporate social advocacy (CSA), where organizations engage with contested sociopolitical issues that require not only external positioning but also strong internal alignment. Because CSA often involves value-laden and potentially divisive issues, employee endorsement is essential for sustaining organizational coherence and credibility (Kim & Meganck, 2025; London, 2018). Accordingly, internal communication serves as a central mechanism through which organizations align employees’ understanding of and engagement with CSA initiatives. Within this process, leadership communication occupies a uniquely influential role. Leaders are responsible for interpreting organizational actions, articulating their significance, and guiding employees toward shared understanding, particularly in situations characterized by ambiguity or controversy (London, 2018; Men & Stacks, 2014). In the CSA context, where employees must make sense of organizational positions on sociopolitical issues, leadership communication becomes a primary lens through which such initiatives are understood and evaluated. As a result, recent scholarship has increasingly emphasized the importance of leadership communication in shaping employee responses to CSA (Kim & Meganck, 2025; Yang et al., 2022). Emerging research has begun to examine how leadership communication functions in CSA-related contexts. For example, Hong and Ji (2022) demonstrate that transparent leadership communication in CEO activism influences employees’ advocacy behaviors through attributional processes. Dong and Ramli (2024) show that transformational leadership enhances employee support for advocacy initiatives, while related work indicates that such leadership strengthens employee–organization relationships and promotes advocacy behaviors (Kim & Meganck, 2025). Similarly, Ghorbanzadeh et al. (2023) find that leaders’ empathetic and attentive communication fosters stronger relational bonds and encourages employee advocacy. These studies underscore the importance of leadership communication in mobilizing employee support for CSA. However, they predominantly conceptualize leadership communication at a general or style-based level (e.g., transparency, transformational leadership), offering limited insight into how specific communicative features shape employees’ interpretations of CSA initiatives themselves. To address this gap, this study adopts Motivating Language Theory (Sullivan, 1988). By focusing on distinct language functions, this approach offers a more precise understanding of how leadership communication shapes employees’ interpretations of CSA initiatives.

Leadership’s Motivating Language in the Context of CSA

Motivating Language Theory (MLT), initially proposed by Sullivan (1988), provides a robust and empirically supported framework for understanding how leaders’ strategic use of language influences employee motivation and organizational outcomes (M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2004). Central to MLT is the premise that effective leadership communication extends beyond the transmission of information and functions as a strategic mechanism for motivating employees. This is achieved through the deliberate use of three distinct but complementary forms of language: direction-giving language, which provides essential clarity and guidance; empathetic language, which fosters interpersonal connection and understanding; and meaning-making language, which aids employees in comprehending the broader purpose and significance of their contributions. Prior research has consistently demonstrated that leaders’ use of motivating language positively influences a range of employee outcomes in organizational settings, including job satisfaction, performance, innovation, and organizational commitment (J. Mayfield, 1970; J. Mayfield et al., 1998; M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2004). These studies show that such language use fosters a more engaged, satisfied, and productive organizational environment by reducing uncertainty, building trust, and facilitating meaning-making among employees. More specifically, direction-giving language provides employees with clear, concise information regarding expectations, goals, and reward structures, thereby reducing ambiguity and enabling employees to allocate effort more effectively (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2009). Empathetic language emphasizes expressions of appreciation, validation, emotional openness, and encouragement, signaling leaders’ concern for employees’ well-being and fostering supportive relationships (J. Mayfield et al., 1995; Sullivan, 1988). Meaning-making language assists employees in understanding organizational culture, values, and the rationale behind decisions, often through stories or metaphors that communicate deeper purpose and significance (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2009; Thelen et al., 2022).

Recognizing the positive roles of leaders’ motivating language in organizational contexts, a growing body of research has begun to apply MLT to corporate social initiatives, including corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social advocacy (CSA). This line of work demonstrates that motivating language enhances organizational citizenship behaviors (Gutierrez-Wirsching et al., 2015), strengthens employee advocacy (Men, 2014a; Thelen & Men, 2023; Yue, 2025), and fosters positive communication climates that promote employee identification with leaders and organizations (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017; Yue et al., 2021). Across this body of work, motivating language has largely been treated as a relational signal that strengthens employee identification, which in turn encourages support for corporate social initiatives (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024; Yang et al., 2022). A recent study (Kim & Meganck, 2025) extends this line of research by showing that leaders’ motivating language can produce broader organizational effects, including greater organizational trust and stronger employee support for CSA. Specifically, this study suggests that motivating language embedded in the broader leadership communication climate, even when not directly addressing CSA content, can indirectly shape employee responses by prompting reciprocal reactions across organizational contexts. While this finding advances our understanding of the relational effects of motivating language, it does not fully explain how leaders’ intentional use of motivating language in CSA-specific internal communication shapes employees’ interpretations of CSA initiatives.

To summarize, prior research has established the relational value of motivating language, emphasizing how it strengthens organizational identification and elicits reciprocal employee responses. While valuable, this body of work primarily highlights indirect pathways through which leadership communication influences employee support, whereby positive impressions of leaders’ language generate generalized affective responses toward the organization, which then carry over to CSA. As a result, it does not fully account for how motivating language shapes employees’ substantive judgments about CSA initiatives themselves, particularly the cognitive evaluative processes through which employees assess whether CSA is meaningful and aligned with organizational values. From a sensemaking perspective, employees actively interpret organizational actions to understand their meaning, implications, and alignment with organizational identity (Weick & Weick, 1995). Accordingly, the value of Motivating Language Theory in this context lies in explaining how leadership communication directly shapes employees’ interpretations of the focal issue, CSA itself, rather than primarily operating through indirect pathways such as how such language influences employees’ general feelings toward the organization. Therefore, unlike previous studies, this study proposes that employees’ perceptions of CSA initiatives (specifically, psychological meaningfulness and perceived company-CSA value alignment) as shaped through leaders’ motivating language, function as critical evaluative mechanisms through which employees determine whether such initiatives merit support.

Motivating Language and Psychological Meaningfulness of CSA

In this study, psychological meaningfulness of CSA is defined as the extent to which employees perceive their organization’s CSA efforts as inherently important, valuable, and worthwhile, reflecting a broader sense of purpose and contribution to the social good. This conceptualization builds on Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement, which posits that individuals fully invest themselves in their work roles when key psychological conditions are met, among which psychological meaningfulness is central. Psychological meaningfulness has consistently been identified as a primary driver of employee engagement, satisfaction, and motivation (May et al., 2004; Thelen et al., 2022), reflecting employees’ belief that their contributions matter and thereby encouraging deeper involvement and discretionary effort (Cascio, 2003; Michaelson et al., 2014). Kahn (1990) suggests that psychological meaningfulness emerges when employees perceive their roles as intrinsically significant, particularly when such perceptions are reinforced by alignment with personal values, clarity regarding one’s role and its broader organizational relevance, and supportive interpersonal interactions. Subsequent research further highlights that meaningfulness is strengthened when employees perceive a clear overarching purpose and hold confidence in its inherent value (Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012; Robertson et al., 2020), enabling them to interpret their work as an authentic and purpose-driven activity rather than a purely instrumental task. Given the often contentious nature of CSA, employees may hold diverse personal views on the sociopolitical issues involved. Under such conditions, whether employees perceive CSA as meaningful at an organizational level becomes a critical determinant of their support. Leadership communication is therefore essential in shaping this perception.

A substantial body of research highlights the critical role of leadership communication in fostering psychological meaningfulness (Sullivan, 1988; Thelen et al., 2022), and the three dimensions of motivating language each contribute to this process in distinct ways. Direction-giving language enhances clarity by helping employees understand the purpose, scope, and organizational relevance of CSA initiatives, thereby reducing ambiguity and enabling more purposeful engagement (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017; Men et al., 2022). Empathetic language fosters trust and supportive relationships by signaling genuine concern for employees’ well-being, strengthening the relational conditions under which meaningfulness is constructed (Sandelands & Boudens, 2000). Meaning-making language helps employees interpret the broader societal significance and moral grounding of CSA, situating organizational actions within a larger framework of purpose and values. Empirical research consistently demonstrates that these dimensions of motivating language are positively associated with employees’ psychological meaningfulness (Binyamin & Brender-Ilan, 2018; Thelen et al., 2022), and emerging evidence in corporate social initiative contexts provides initial support for extending this logic to CSA specifically (Kim & Meganck, 2025). Accordingly, we propose:

H1a: Leadership’s direction-giving language in CSA internal communication is positively related to employees’ psychological meaningfulness of CSA.

H1b: Leadership’s empathetic language in CSA internal communication is positively related to employees’ psychological meaningfulness of CSA.

H1c: Leadership’s meaning-making language in CSA internal communication is positively related to employees’ psychological meaningfulness of CSA.

Motivating Language and Perceived Company-CSA Value Alignment

The strategic importance of company–issue fit, also referred to as issue–company congruency, is well-established within the CSR literature (Du et al., 2010; H. S. Kim & Choi, 2014; Y. Kim & Ferguson, 2019; Schmeltz, 2014). Prior research consistently demonstrates that a high degree of congruence between a company’s characteristics and its CSR initiatives elicits more favorable stakeholder evaluations, while low fit often demands additional cognitive processing and can generate skepticism or complex public responses (Du et al., 2010; Y. Kim & Ferguson, 2019; Schmeltz, 2014). While company–issue fit has been extensively examined in CSR research, studies on CSA have focused less on perceived alignment between an organization and the sociopolitical issues it advocates (Y. Kim, 2025b). Instead, a significant portion of CSA research has emphasized personal-level value alignment, the degree to which individuals perceive congruence between their own values and the company’s advocacy stance (Jin et al., 2023; J. Liu & Getz, 2024). Such alignment fosters organizational identification, brand engagement, and stronger stakeholder relationships (Hydock et al., 2020; Jin et al., 2023). Despite these established benefits, the influence of perceived congruence between CSA and the company itself remains comparatively underexplored.

This gap is partly attributable to early CSA conceptualizations that restricted advocacy to controversial, “hot-button” topics often disconnected from core business operations (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024). Recent scholarship, however, reconceptualizes CSA as encompassing a broader spectrum of sociopolitical topics, including both emerging divisive issues and those with established social consensus, through which organizations deliberately articulate deeply embedded corporate values, shape public opinion, and cultivate social capital (Y. Kim, 2024b, 2025b; Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024). When implemented strategically with careful attention to value-congruence, CSA can evolve into a potent public relations practice that achieves societal impact while strengthening relationships with key stakeholders, including employees (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024). This study therefore examines how leaders’ motivating language shapes employees’ perceived company-CSA value alignment, defined as the degree to which employees perceive correspondence between an organization’s core values and the sociopolitical issues it champions. This focus distinguishes the present study from prior work centered on personal stakeholder values (Jin et al., 2023; J. Liu & Getz, 2024) and addresses a gap in understanding how leadership communication fosters value alignment between a company and its social initiatives.

Consistent with the established effectiveness of storytelling in conveying organizational identity, values, and purpose (Beverland & Luxton, 2005), leaders’ motivating language is proposed as a key mechanism for shaping perceived company-CSA value alignment. Meaning-making language positively influences perceptions of organizational authenticity and reinforces employees’ understanding of an organization’s values and identity (Yue et al., 2023), enabling employees to grasp the alignment that CSA endeavors to represent. Empathetic language, by conveying genuine care and a human-centered approach, fosters value congruence by allowing employees to perceive corporate behaviors as authentic and relatable (Mullins & Syam, 2014). Direction-giving language articulates how CSA efforts correspond to the organization’s broader goals and vision, solidifying employees’ perception of how corporate behaviors reflect organizational culture (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024; J. Mayfield et al., 2015). These dimensions of motivating language are essential for cultivating a robust perceived value alignment between the company and the sociopolitical issues it champions. Accordingly, we propose:

H2a: Leadership’s direction-giving language in CSA internal communication is positively associated with employees’ perceived value alignment between the company and the CSA initiative.

H2b: Leadership’s empathetic language in CSA internal communication is positively associated with employees’ perceived value alignment between the company and the CSA initiative.

H2c: Leadership’s meaning-making language in CSA internal communication is positively associated with employees’ perceived value alignment between the company and the CSA initiative.

Effects of Psychological Meaningfulness of CSA and Company-CSA Value Alignment

This study posits that the psychological meaningfulness of CSA and perceived company-CSA value alignment are key drivers of three positive employee outcomes: advocacy intention, positive megaphoning, and organizational trust. Advocacy intention refers to employees’ active willingness to support, defend, and promote the company’s CSA initiative, both within and outside the organization, by speaking positively about its stance and efforts on the specific sociopolitical issue at hand (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024). As such, advocacy intention is scoped specifically to employees’ responses toward CSA initiatives themselves. Positive megaphoning, by contrast, captures a broader form of favorable employee expression, describing employees’ voluntary and favorable communication about the organization as a whole to external stakeholders, encompassing actions such as sharing positive information, recommending the company, or defending its reputation (Y. Kim, 2023). Given its voluntary, verbal, and externally oriented nature, positive megaphoning has been conceptualized as a form of employee communication behavior (ECB; Kim & Rhee, 2011; Lee & Kim, 2021; Thelen, 2021), and is therefore conceptually distinct from, albeit related to, broader organizational citizenship and advocacy behaviors. Organizational trust reflects employees’ confidence in the company’s integrity, benevolence, and competence (Hon & Grunig, 1999).

Effects of Psychological Meaningfulness of CSA

Drawing on Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement, psychological meaningfulness is a fundamental condition that enables individuals to fully invest themselves in their work across cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. Similarly, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) identifies meaningfulness as a key driver of intrinsic motivation. A substantial body of research consistently shows that perceived meaningfulness predicts positive employee outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and proactive behaviors (Li & Tan, 2013; Lin et al., 2020; May et al., 2004; Thelen et al., 2022). Building on this foundation, we argue that psychological meaningfulness of CSA functions as a proximal motivational mechanism that shapes employees’ behavioral and attitudinal responses. When employees perceive CSA initiatives as meaningful, they are more likely to experience a sense of purpose and motivational vitality that sustains engagement and encourages proactive behavior (Binyamin & Brender-Ilan, 2018; Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Prior research shows that meaningful work is positively associated with advocacy intentions, suggesting that employees who find their work meaningful are more inclined to support and promote their organization externally (Thelen et al., 2022). Psychological meaningfulness is also expected to foster positive megaphoning. Although voluntary external communication involves social risk and discretionary effort (Dyne et al., 2003), meaningfulness provides a strong internal justification that enables employees to overcome hesitation and engage in constructive expression (Binyamin & Brender-Ilan, 2016). Employees who experience higher levels of meaningfulness are therefore more likely to engage in positive organizational discourse and advocacy behaviors (Z. Liu et al., 2022; Walden & Kingsley Westerman, 2018). Finally, psychological meaningfulness is expected to strengthen organizational trust. When employees perceive CSA as meaningful, they are more likely to experience positive affect and a sense of being valued and respected, which in turn deepens trust in the organization (Chen et al., 2018). Thus, we propose:

H3a: Psychological meaningfulness of CSA is positively associated with employees’ advocacy intention for the CSA initiative.

H3b: Psychological meaningfulness of CSA is positively associated with employees’ positive megaphoning intention.

H3c: Psychological meaningfulness of CSA is positively associated with employees’ trust in the organization.

Effects of Perceived Company-CSA Value Alignment

The alignment between corporate initiatives and organizational values has long been recognized as a critical determinant of stakeholder responses in CSR research (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Ellen et al., 2006; Y. Kim & Ferguson, 2019). Grounded in schema theory (Bartlett, 1932), perceived congruence facilitates information processing by allowing stakeholders to interpret organizational actions within existing cognitive frameworks, while perceived misalignment generates inconsistency and often elicits skepticism or negative evaluations (Schmeltz, 2014).Extending this logic to the CSA context, perceived company-CSA value alignment reflects the degree to which employees view the organization’s advocacy as consistent with its core values, identity, and vision. When such alignment is perceived, employees can more readily interpret CSA initiatives as coherent and credible organizational actions, increasing the likelihood of favorable responses. Prior research demonstrates that value alignment promotes supportive behaviors—including advocacy and positive word-of-mouth—while reducing negative reactions such as resistance and disengagement (Du et al., 2010; Hong & Li, 2020; Yang et al., 2022). Strong value alignment has also been shown to encourage positive megaphoning, as employees are more willing to externally promote and defend the organization when its actions are perceived as consistent and value-driven (Men, 2014; Schade et al., 2022). Alignment further enhances organizational trust by reinforcing perceptions of authenticity, appropriate motivation, and relevance (Y. Kim & Ferguson, 2019; Schaefer et al., 2019). In the CSA context, where sociopolitical engagement is inherently contested, perceived alignment is especially consequential in shaping whether employees respond with support or skepticism. Recent scholarship supports this reasoning, showing that stakeholders who recognize alignment between corporate values and advocacy efforts respond more favorably (Overton et al., 2021), and that positioning CSA as an extension of core organizational values is a key strategy for cultivating employee support (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024). Building on this reasoning, we propose:

H4a: Perceived company-CSA value alignment is positively associated with employees’ advocacy intentions regarding the CSA initiative.

H4b: Perceived company-CSA value alignment is positively associated with employees’ intentions to engage in positive megaphoning.

H4c: Perceived company-CSA value alignment is positively associated with employees’ trust in the organization.

Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized relationships among the variables.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Method

This study utilized an online survey administered to full-time employees in the United States during February 2025.

Sampling and Data Collection

The target population for this study comprised full-time employees residing in the U.S. To ensure a representative sample that mirrored the demographic distribution of the U.S. population, a quota sampling method was employed. Prolific, a leading online research participant recruitment platform, managed the distribution of recruitment invitations according to the predefined quota specifications. Potential participants who received an invitation and met the initial criterion of being a full-time employee in the U.S. were directed to a Qualtrics survey platform. Here, they were first presented with an informed consent document. Following consent, participants completed two additional screening questions. The screening questions evaluated two key aspects: participants’ awareness of CSA initiatives in their workplace and their recollection of leadership’s internal communications pertaining to CSA. A plain language definition of CSA was provided prior to these questions. Subsequently, participants were prompted to describe specific examples of CSA within their organizations and to indicate any related internal communications from leadership they had received. This screening process ensured that only participants with demonstrable awareness of their employers’ CSA activities and associated internal communications from leadership could proceed to the main survey. To ensure sample quality, responses with unusually short completion times or failed attention checks were automatically removed via Prolific’s screening mechanisms, yielding a final analytic sample of valid, complete responses. The main survey consisted of measures for the key study variables and standard demographic questions.

Participants

A total of 528 full-time employees participated in the online survey. The sample was comprised of 53.6% (n = 283) men, 45.5% (n = 240) women, 0.4% (n = 2) non-binary individuals, and 0.6% (n = 3) who preferred not to answer regarding gender. The average age of participants was approximately 40 years old (M = 40.89, SD = 13.75).Racially, participants identified as 64.6% (n = 341) White/Caucasian, 15.7% (n = 83) Black/African American, 7.6% (n = 40) Asian/Asian American, 8.1% (n = 43) Hispanic/Latino, 0.4% (n = 2) American Indian/Alaska Native, and 3.6% (n = 19) as another race/ethnicity. In terms of educational attainment, 6.6% (n = 35) held a high school diploma or equivalent, 18.6% (n = 98) reported some college with no degree, 43.6% (n = 230) possessed a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent, 22.2% (n = 117) a Master’s degree or equivalent, and 4.4% (n = 23) a professional degree. Household income distribution showed 9.5% (n = 50) earned less than $30,000; 22.2% (n = 117) earned between $30,000 and $59,999; 16.5% (n = 87) earned $60,000 to $79,999; 12.1% (n = 64) earned $80,000 to $99,999; and 39.8% (n = 210) earned more than $100,000. Current job tenure was well-distributed, with 6.4% (n = 34) reporting less than 1 year, 28.2% (n = 149) reporting 1 to 3 years, 25.6% (n = 135) reporting 4 to 6 years, 10.8% (n = 57) reporting 7 to 9 years, and 29.0% (n = 153) reporting 10 years or more. Regarding job position, 34.7% (n = 183) were in non-management roles, 21.8% (n = 116) in lower-level management, 33.0% (n = 174) in middle-level management, and 10.6% (n = 56) in upper-level management. The industry sectors represented varied widely, with the most common being healthcare and social assistance (13.6%, n = 72), information (11.7%, n = 62), finance and insurance (10.0%, n = 53), retail trade (9.8%, n = 52), and educational services (9.7%, n = 51). Regarding company size, the largest proportion of participants (30.1%, n = 159) worked in companies with 1,500 or more employees. Other company sizes were distributed as follows: 13.8% (n = 73) worked for companies with 100 to 249 employees, 10.4% (n = 55) with 0 to 24 employees, 10.2% (n = 54) with 250 to 499 employees, 9.8% (n = 52) with 50 to 99 employees, 8.5% (n = 45) with 25 to 49 employees, 7.4% (n = 39) with 500 to 749 employees, 5.9% (n = 31) with 1,000 to 1,499 employees, and 3.8% (n = 20) with 750 to 999 employees.

Measurements

To measure leaders’ motivating language, items were adapted from established scales (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017; Men et al., 2021). This construct encompasses three dimensions: direction-giving, meaning-making, and empathetic language. The original wording of items was modified to specifically reflect the CSA context of this study. The direction-giving dimension within CSA communication was assessed using six items (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017; Men et al., 2021). The empathetic language dimension was measured using 10 items (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017; Men et al., 2021). The meaning-making dimension was measured with six items (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017). Psychological meaningfulness of CSA was assessed using a six-item scale adapted from existing research (Binyamin & Brender-Ilan, 2018; May et al., 2004). Perceived value alignment was assessed using a five-item scale adapted from previous research (Y. Kim & Ferguson, 2019). The original wording of these items was modified to suit the specific context of the current study. Respondents were asked to evaluate how closely the CSA aligns with the company’s core values. Employees’ advocacy intentions toward CSA initiatives were measured using a four-item scale adapted from existing studies (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024). Positive megaphoning intention was assessed via four items drawing upon previous research (Y. Kim, 2017, 2025b). Finally, trust in the organization was measured with five items adapted from Hon and Grunig (1999). Personal attitudes toward the CSA were measured using a semantic differential scale adapted from MacKenzie and Lutz (1989). Participants indicated their overall attitude toward the company’s CSA stance on a seven point scale anchored by bad/good, unfavorable/favorable, and negative/positive. All other study variables were measured using seven point Likert type scales. Internal consistency reliability for all scales, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, exceeded .90. All factor loadings for each item were above 0.80. The detailed information on the measurement can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Measurements.

Concept	Measurement items	Factor loadings
Leadership’s direction giving language (M = 5.25, SD = 1.40, Cronbach’s α = .945)	The leader(s) in my organization:
	Provides timely information about upcoming CSA initiatives and any related changes.	0.830
	Shares relevant information about forthcoming changes that may affect my work related to CSA initiatives.	0.847
	Clearly explains how the company’s CSA goals relate to my specific role and responsibilities.	0.852
	Keeps me informed about past CSA initiatives and any changes that may impact my work.	0.900
	Offers clear guidance and support for addressing any questions or concerns that may arise from the company’s CSA activities.	0.859
	Provides easily understandable instructions regarding the initiatives.	0.889
Leadership’s meaning-making language (M = 5.06, SD = 1.45, Cronbach’s α = .935)	Share stories about significant moments and milestones in the company’s CSA journey.	0.819
	Share stories about how individuals within the company have made a positive impact through CSA.	0.812
	Provide me with insights into the company’s CSA strategy and decision-making processes.	0.822
	Highlight colleagues who are role models for their involvement in CSA.	0.803
	Offer guidance on how to integrate my personal values with the company’s CSA efforts.	0.863
	Communicates narratives that reinforce the organization’s commitment to corporate social advocacy.	0.831
Leadership’s empathetic language (M = 5.07, SD = 1.09, Cronbach’s α = .973)	Express support for my professional growth and development as it relates to the company’s CSA efforts.	0.859
	Recognize and appreciate my contributions to the company’s CSA initiatives.	0.859
	Encourage my active participation and involvement in CSA efforts.	0.875
	Acknowledge any potential impact of the company’s CSA decisions on my well-being or work-life balance.	0.800
	Express personal support for my engagement with CSA issues.	0.894
	Show sensitivity to my perspectives and needs concerning the company’s CSA positions.	0.886
	Demonstrate trust in my ability to contribute to CSA initiatives.	0.878
	Express appreciation for my participation in or support of the company’s CSA efforts.	0.894
	Show empathy and understanding toward any challenges I may face due to the company’s CSA stance.	0.886
	Offer support and understanding if I experience any difficulties related to the company’s CSA activities.	0.878
Psychological meaningfulness (M = 5.46, SD = 1.42, Cronbach’s α = .968)	The CSA initiatives promoted by my organization align with important social values.	0.869
	The organization’s corporate social advocacy efforts have a meaningful impact on society.	0.893
	The advocacy work my organization engages in is significant and contributes to meaningful change.	0.937
	My organization’s commitment to CSA is worthwhile and fosters a positive social impact.	0.927
	I believe the corporate social advocacy initiatives my organization supports are valuable to the broader community.	0.937
	The CSA efforts of my organization are meaningful and contribute to a greater purpose.	0.917
Employees’ perceived CSA-company value alignment (M = 5.47, SD = 1.36, Cronbach’s α = .955)	I found strong alignment between my company’s corporate social advocacy (CSA) efforts and its core values.	0.894
	The CSA initiatives are consistent with what the company stands for and believes in.	0.924
	The CSA efforts reflect the company’s core values and guiding principles.	0.913
	The CSA initiatives are appropriate for the company’s long-term vision.	0.899
	The CSA) efforts are strongly aligned with the company’s enduring values.	0.926
Advocacy intention (M = 4.92, SD = 1.44, Cronbach’s α = .972)	I would speak favorably about the company’s corporate social advocacy (CSA) efforts in public.	0.953
	I would share positive opinions about the company’s CSA initiatives with others.	0.963
	I would defend the company’s CSA efforts when they are criticized by others.	0.939
	I would actively and enthusiastically tell others about the company’s CSA initiatives to emphasize their importance and social value.	0.932
Trust in the organization (M = 5.41, SD = 1.44, Cronbach’s α = .952)	This company treats people like me fairly and justly.	0.833
	Whenever this company makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about people like me.	0.912
	This company can be relied on to keep its promises.	0.919
	I believe that this company takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions.	0.928
	I feel very confident about this company’s skills.	0.820
	This company has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.	0.826
Positive megaphoning intention (M = 5.15, SD = 1.48, Cronbach’s α = .963)	In reflection of my company’s CSA initiatives:
	I intend to say good things to my friends and neighbors about positive aspects of the management and company.	0.931
	I intend to recommend my company and its service/products to people around me.	0.902
	I intend to speak up when I encounter biased or ignorant criticism of my company.	0.858
	I intend to defend my company when I meet people who are angry about my company	0.870

Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity

The data analysis followed a two-step approach. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 29 to assess the measurement model, along with tests for composite reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity to establish the model’s overall reliability and validity. This was followed by structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesized relationships. The CFA results indicated a great model fit (χ²/df = 2.52, CFI = 0.955, TLI = 0.951, NFI = 0.938, and RMSEA = 0.05). We assessed the composite reliability, along with convergent and discriminant validities, of the measurement model. Discriminant validity confirms that a construct’s indicators are distinct from those of other constructs, preventing inappropriately high correlations. Conversely, convergent validity evaluates how well measurement items align with their target construct, ensuring they consistently measure the intended latent variable. These assessments were conducted using Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Maximum Shared Variance (MSV), and Maximum Reliability (MaxR(H)). As Table 2 shows, all CR values surpassed the recommended threshold of 0.70, and CR values were greater than their corresponding AVE values. Additionally, all AVE values exceeded the 0.50 benchmark, and every MSV value was lower than its corresponding AVE value. These results confirm the measurement model met the criteria for both convergent and discriminant validity, indicating no notable concerns regarding reliability or construct validity.

Table 2.

Discriminant Validity, Convergent Validity, and Composite Reliability.

Concept	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)	MI	AI	TO	PVA	PM	EL	MM	DG
PMI	0.939	0.893	0.797	0.944	0.944
AI	0.972	0.896	0.797	0.973	0.893	0.947
TO	0.944	0.738	0.677	0.957	0.823	0.706	0.859
PVA	0.961	0.830	0.629	0.962	0.781	0.793	0.750	0.911
PM	0.965	0.820	0.626	0.968	0.695	0.788	0.636	0.791	0.905
EL	0.963	0.864	0.764	0.965	0.686	0.654	0.712	0.682	0.762	0.930
MM	0.922	0.662	0.764	0.924	0.648	0.634	0.662	0.690	0.761	0.874	0.814
DG	0.933	0.736	0.686	0.935	0.652	0.656	0.662	0.654	0.757	0.828	0.794	0.858

Note. Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Maximum Shared Variance (MSV), and Maximum Reliability (MaxR(H)) were calculated to assess the measurement model’s reliability and validity. Key constructs examined included Positive Megaphoning Intention (PMI), Advocacy Intention (AI), Trust in the Organization (TO), Perceived Value Alignment (PVA), Psychological Meaningfulness of CSA (PM), Empathetic Language (EL), Meaning-Making Language (MM), and Direction-Giving Language (DG).

Results

To test the proposed hypotheses, two separate structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses were conducted using AMOS 29, one with a control variable and one without. Given prior research highlighting the strong influence of individuals’ personal stances on CSA initiatives (Rim et al., 2022), personal attitudes toward the CSA were included as a control variable. AThe model without the control variable demonstrated excellent fit (χ²/df = 2.7, CFI = 0.968, TLI = 0.920, NFI = 0.966, and RMSEA = 0.15). The model including the control variable also showed excellent fit (χ²/df = 1.7, CFI = 0.953, TLI = 0.920, NFI = 0.950, and RMSEA = 0.16). However, the significance of some paths differed between the two models, as shown in Figure 2. To rigorously account for the influence of personal attitudes toward the CSA, we report the model with the control variable.

Figure 2.

Standardized coefficient scores: (a) without control variable and (b) with control variable.

H1 predicted that leadership’s motivating language in CSA internal communication would be positively associated with employees’ psychological meaningfulness of CSA. The paths from direction-giving language (β = .173, p < .001), empathetic language (β = .154, p < .001), and meaning-making language (β = .220, p < .001) to psychological meaningfulness of CSA were all positive and statistically significant. Therefore, H1a to c are supported. H2 predicted that leadership’s motivating language in CSA internal communication would be positively associated with employees’ perceived value alignment between the company and its CSA initiative. After controlling for employees’ personal pre-existing attitudes toward CSA, direction-giving language did not have a significantly positive impact on perceived value alignment. Empathetic language (β = .167, p < .005) and meaning-making language (β = .305, p < .001), however, did significantly and positively influence this perception, even when controlling for personal beliefs. Therefore, H2a was not supported, but H2b and H2c were supported. H3 predicted a positive association between employees’ psychological meaningfulness of CSA and employee-related outcomes. The paths from psychological meaningfulness of CSA to advocacy intention (β = .414, p < .001), positive megaphoning intention (β = .236, p < .002), and trust (β = .151, p < .001) were all positive and statistically significant. Therefore, H3a, H3b, and H3c were supported. H4 posited that perceived company-CSA value alignment would positively influence employee outcomes. The paths from perceived company-CSA value alignment to advocacy intention (β = .454, p < .001), positive megaphoning intention (β = .572, p < .002), and trust (β = .617, p < .001) were all positive and statistically significant. Therefore, H4a, H4b, and H4c were supported. Additional mediation analyses using bootstrapping in AMOS 29 were conducted to examine the mediating roles of the proposed constructs in the relationship between leadership’s motivating language and the outcome variables. The results indicated that both constructs showed significant mediating effects. As shown in Table 2, the indirect effects of direction-giving language on advocacy intention (β = .105, p < .01) and positive megaphoning (β = .083, p < .05), mediated through psychological meaningfulness of CSA and perceived company-CSA value alignment, were statistically significant. However, its indirect effect on trust was not significant. Empathetic language showed significant indirect effects on trust (β = .126, p < .01), advocacy intention (β = .140, p < .001), and megaphoning intention (β = .132, p < .005), via the same mediators. Meaning-making language demonstrated significant indirect effects on trust (β = .151, p < .001), advocacy intention (β = .414, p < .001), and positive megaphoning intention (β = .236, p < .001), with these effects mediated by psychological meaningfulness of CSA and perceived company-CSA value alignment. That is, the mediation analyses revealed that both meaning-making and empathetic language exerted significant indirect effects on all three outcome variables (advocacy intention, positive megaphoning, and trust) through psychological meaningfulness of CSA and perceived company-CSA value alignment. Direction-giving language also produced significant indirect effects on advocacy intention and positive megaphoning through the same mediating mechanisms, but not on trust (Table 3).

Table 3.

Direct and Indirect Impact (Standardized Coefficients).

Independent variables	Mediating/dependent variables	Direct impact	Indirect impact	Total impact
Leadership’s direction giving language	PM	0.173***		0.173***
	PVA	0.073		0.073
	AI		0.105**	0.105**
	PMI		0.083*	0.083*
	TO		0.071	0.071
Leadership’s empathetic language	PM	0.154***		0.154***
	PVA	0.167***		0.167***
	AI		0.126**	0.126**
	PMI		0.140***	0.140***
	TO		0.132**	0.132**
Leadership’s meaning-making language	PM	0.220***		0.220***
Leadership’s meaning-making language	PVA	0.231***		0.231***
	AI		0.414***	0.414***
	PMI		0.236***	0.236***
	TO		0.151***	0.151***

Note. PMI = positive megaphoning intention; AI = advocacy intention; TO = trust in the organization; PVA = perceived value alignment; PM = psychological meaningfulness of CSA; EL = empathetic language; MM = meaning-making language; DG = direction-giving language.

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

Discussion

First, the results demonstrate that all three dimensions of motivating language—direction-giving, empathetic, and meaning-making—positively influence employees’ psychological meaningfulness of CSA. Leaders’ use of these communication strategies helped employees perceive CSA initiatives as purposeful, significant, and intrinsically worthwhile. Notably, the positive influence on psychological meaningfulness remained consistent, irrespective of whether employees’ pre-existing personal attitudes toward the sociopolitical issues central to their organization’s CSA were controlled for in the analysis. Previous CSA research has highlighted the substantial risks associated with advocacy on contested social issues, often showing that employee support hinges on personal alignment with an organization’s stance and that misalignment may lead to resistance or disengagement (Hambrick & Wowak, 2021; Hong & Li, 2020; Rim et al., 2024). In contrast, the present findings suggest that leaders’ motivating language can partially offset these risks by shaping how employees interpret CSA initiatives themselves.

Consistent with engagement theory, psychological meaningfulness emerges when individuals perceive both a clear purpose and inherent value in an activity (Kahn, 1990; Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012; Robertson et al., 2020). The findings indicate that motivating language fulfills these conditions in the CSA context. Direction-giving language clarifies purpose and expectations, empathetic language communicates care and inclusion, and meaning-making language situates CSA initiatives within a broader organizational and societal narrative. Together, these communication strategies appear to help employees move beyond purely individual evaluations of sociopolitical issues and instead interpret CSA initiatives as official corporate actions that reflect collective organizational values. While prior research has established the role of motivating language in fostering psychological meaningfulness at work (Sullivan, 1988; Thelen et al., 2022), this study extends that insight to CSA, demonstrating how leadership communication specifically enhances employees’ psychological meaningfulness of corporate advocacy efforts.

Second, the findings reveal a more differentiated pattern for perceived CSA–company value alignment. Empathetic and meaning-making language positively influenced perceived value alignment, whereas the effect of direction-giving language became nonsignificant once employees’ personal attitudes toward the CSA issue were controlled. Consistent with prior research highlighting the strong influence of personal stances on CSA initiatives (Rim et al., 2022), this underscores the importance of accounting for employees’ pre-existing beliefs when examining responses to organizational advocacy. The pattern further suggests that not all motivating language dimensions operate equally in shaping value congruence judgments. Empathetic language may signal authenticity, care, and moral concern, while meaning-making language more explicitly connects advocacy to organizational identity and broader societal purpose, making both particularly salient for alignment perceptions. Direction-giving language, by contrast, is better suited to clarifying goals, expectations, and appropriate responses than to communicating value-based coherence. This aligns with prior work suggesting that the relative influence of motivating language dimensions varies by communication context and outcome (Men et al., 2022; Sandelands & Boudens, 2000). In the CSA context, where meaningfulness and value consistency are central, employees appear to rely more heavily on empathetic and meaning-making cues than on instrumental guidance when evaluating whether organizational advocacy genuinely reflects its values.

Third, both psychological meaningfulness and perceived company-CSA value alignment positively predicted employees’ advocacy intentions, positive megaphoning intentions, and trust in the organization. These findings indicate that employees’ interpretations of CSA initiatives not only shape advocacy-related outcomes but also spill over into broader relational outcomes, particularly trust, which is foundational to employee-organization relationships (Hon & Grunig, 1999). The positive effects of psychological meaningfulness support engagement theory (Kahn, 1990) and align with research showing that meaningfulness fosters engagement, proactive behavior, and well-being across work contexts (Z. Liu et al., 2022; Walden & Kingsley Westerman, 2018). The present study demonstrates that these effects extend to CSA, underscoring the role of meaningfulness as a transferable psychological resource. Similarly, perceived value alignment facilitated positive employee responses, consistent with schema-based explanations suggesting that congruence allows stakeholders to process organizational actions more fluently and favorably (Bartlett, 1932; Schmeltz, 2014). Prior CSR and CSA research documents the benefits of value congruence for stakeholder evaluations (Du et al., 2010; Hong & Li, 2020; Yang et al., 2022), and the present findings extend this logic to internal employee responses. Notably, while all dimensions of motivating language indirectly enhanced advocacy and positive megaphoning, only empathetic and meaning-making language exhibited significant indirect effects on organizational trust. This suggests that in CSA contexts, instrumental clarity alone is insufficient for cultivating trust; rather, employees rely on signals of authenticity, care, and value coherence.

Theoretical Implications

Theoretically, this study advances motivating language theory and CSA scholarship in several important ways. Whereas some prior studies conceptualize motivating language as a unified construct and emphasize its ripple effects through employee identification (e.g., Kim & Meganck, 2025), this study disaggregates motivating language into its constituent dimensions and examines how each operates through distinct psychological mechanisms. By focusing on psychological meaningfulness and company-CSA value alignment, the findings illuminate alternative pathways beyond identification through which leadership communication shapes employee support for CSA. Drawing on engagement theory, this study positions psychological meaningfulness as a central explanatory mechanism in the CSA context, highlighting how employees derive intrinsic value from advocacy initiatives independent of their personal sociopolitical alignment. In doing so, the findings shift attention from relational attachment to organizations toward employees’ interpretations of CSA initiatives themselves. Additionally, by emphasizing company-CSA value alignment rather than personal-level alignment, this research reframes CSA as a strategic corporate social initiative embedded in organizational identity and values, rather than as a reactive or episodic form of public communication. This perspective aligns with more recent conceptualizations of CSA as part of a broader portfolio of corporate social initiatives alongside CSR (Y. Kim & Meganck, 2024; Kim & Meganck, 2025) and contrasts with earlier views that treated CSA as isolated, issue-driven messaging (M. D. Dodd & Supa, 2014).

Practical Implications

This study also offers meaningful practical implications. If leaders aim to strengthen employees’ perceptions of value alignment between CSA initiatives and the organization, prioritizing empathetic and meaning-making language is likely to be most effective. At the same time, because all three dimensions of motivating language contribute to psychological meaningfulness, direction-giving language remains an important component of CSA communication. Leaders can strategically adjust the emphasis placed on each dimension depending on whether the primary goal is to clarify purpose, convey values, or foster emotional connection. For example, leaders can use direction giving language to reduce uncertainty by clearly communicating what the organization is doing, why it is doing so, and how employees can respond or participate, helping set expectations and clarify roles. Empathetic language can acknowledge employees’ feelings and concerns, especially given the socially and politically charged nature of CSA topics, fostering a sense of care and psychological safety. Meaning making language can connect CSA actions to the organization’s broader values and societal purpose, helping employees interpret these initiatives as principled and meaningful. Moreover, the findings underscore the role of leadership communication in mitigating employee concerns when CSA initiatives do not align perfectly with individual viewpoints. By situating CSA within a broader organizational narrative and articulating its purpose and values, leaders can encourage advocacy, positive megaphoning, and trust even in politically sensitive contexts. These insights are particularly relevant for senior executives and public relations practitioners responsible for designing and managing internal communication around corporate social initiatives.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite its contributions, this study has limitations. Although we controlled for employees’ personal attitudes toward CSA issues, future research could examine how motivating language influences personal-level value alignment alongside company-level alignment to provide a more nuanced understanding of these dynamics. In addition, this study did not collect information on participants’ political affiliation. Political affiliation may play an important role in shaping employee responses to CSA initiatives, as reactions to CSA topics are often influenced by individuals’ political orientations. Accordingly, future studies on CSA are encouraged to consider political affiliation as an important control variable. The findings are most applicable to medium and large organizations with formal leadership communication structures; small organizations or B2B contexts may exhibit different patterns due to closer interpersonal relationships and distinct communication norms. Finally, because the study was conducted with U.S.-based employees, cultural differences may limit generalizability. Future research should explore these relationships in diverse national and cultural contexts, where interpretations of CSA and leadership communication may vary substantially.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Yeonsoo Kim

Ethical Considerations

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas at Austin. The study involved minimal risk and complied with ethical standards for research involving human participants.

Consent to Participate

All participants provided informed consent prior to participation in the study.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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

There are no publicly available data associated with this study.

Author Biographies

Yeonsoo Kim is an associate professor at the Stan Richards School of Advertising and Public Relations. Her research focuses on strategic communication, CSR, diversity and inclusion in PR, corporate social advocacy, reputation, and crisis management. She directs the Strategic CSR and Communication Lab.

Shana Meganck is an associate professor at James Madison University. She teaches public relations and studies health communication, new media, and PR, as well as pedagogy, including active learning and service learning.

Jino Chung is a Ph.D. student at University of Texas at Austin. His research focuses on consumer well-being and human–computer interaction, exploring how digital technologies influence user experience and decision-making.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Austin

Gaither

T. K.

(2019). Corporate social advocacy as public interest communications: Exploring perceptions of corporate involvement in controversial social-political issues. The Journal of Public Interest Communications, 3, 3–31. https://doi.org/10.32473/jpic.v3.i2.p3

Bartlett

F. C.

(1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Becker-Olsen

K. L.

Cudmore

B. A.

Hill

R. P.

(2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001

Bedendo

Siming

(2021). To advocate or not to advocate: Determinants and financial consequences of CEO activism. British Journal of Management, 32, 1062–1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12459

Berger

(2008). Employee=organizational communications. Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/employee-organizational-communications/

Beverland

Luxton

(2005). Managing integrated marketing communication (IMC) through strategic decoupling: How luxury wine firms retain brand leadership while appearing to be wedded to the past. Journal of Advertising, 34, 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639207

Binyamin

Brender-Ilan

(2016). When leaders’ language motivates employees to be proactive: The role of meaningfulness and vitality [Conference session]. Academy of Management Proceedings.

Binyamin

Brender-Ilan

(2018). Leaders’s language and employee proactivity: Enhancing psychological meaningfulness and vitality. European Management Journal, 36, 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.09.004

10.

Browning

Lee

Park

Y. E.

Kim

Collins

(2020). Muting or meddling? Advocacy as a relational communication strategy affecting organization–public relationships and stakeholder response. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97, 1026–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020916810

11.

Cascio

W. F.

(2003). Responsible restructuring: Seeing employees as assets, not costs. Ivey Business Journal, 68, 1–5.

12.

Chen

S.-J.

Wang

M.-J.

Lee

S.-H.

(2018). Transformational leadership and voice behaviors: The mediating effect of employee perceived meaningful work. Personnel Review, 47, 694–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-01-2017-0016

13.

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, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01

14.

Dodd

(2018). Globalization, pluralization, and erosion: The impact of shifting societal expectations for advocacy and public good. The Journal of Public Interest Communications, 2, 221. https://doi.org/10.32473/jpic.v2.i2.p221

15.

Dodd

M. D.

Supa

D. W.

(2014). Conceptualizing and measuring “corporate social advocacy” communication: Examining the impact on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Journal, 8, 2–23.

16.

Dong

Ramli

(2024). Framework for understanding employee advocacy through leadership and communication. British Journal of Mass Communication and Media Research, 4(4), 129–144.

17.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x

18.

Dyne

L. V.

Ang

Botero

I. C.

(2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384

19.

Ellen

P. S.

Webb

D. J.

Mohr

L. A.

(2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284976

20.

Ghorbanzadeh

Chandra

Akhmadeev

Yurievna Aleynikova

Muda

(2023). Enhancing emotional culture through internal communication: Impact on employee-organization relationships and employee advocacy. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 17(5), 475–495.

21.

Gutierrez-Wirsching

Mayfield

Wang

(2015). Motivating language as a mediator between servant leadership and employee outcomes. Management Research Review, 38, 1234–1250. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2014-0009

22.

Hambrick

D. C.

Wowak

A. J.

(2021). CEO sociopolitical activism: A stakeholder alignment model. Academy of Management Review, 46, 33–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0084

23.

Hong

Y. G.

(2022). When transparent leadership communication motivates employee advocacy: Testing the mediator roles of employee attributions in CEO activism. Public Relations Review, 48(3), 102202.

24.

Hong

(2020). To support or to boycott: a public segmentation model in corporate social advocacy. Journal of Public Relations Research, 32, 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2020.1848841

25.

Hon

L. C.

Grunig

J. E.

(1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. https://instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/Guidelines_Measuring_Relationships.pdf

26.

Hydock

Paharia

Blair

(2020). Should your brand pick a side? How market share determines the impact of corporate political advocacy. Journal of Marketing Research, 57, 1135–1151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720947682

27.

Jin

Mitson

Qin

Y. S.

Vielledent

Men

L. R.

Men

L. R.

(2023). Enhancing young consumer’s relational and behavioral outcomes: The impact of CEO activism authenticity and value alignment. Public Relations Review, 49, 102312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102312

28.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287

29.

Kim

H. S.

Choi

S. Y.

(2014). Corporate performance drivers in vertical downstream alliance portfolios: The Korean defense industry. Journal of Management & Organization, 20, 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.30

30.

Kim

J. K.

Overton

Bhalla

J. Y.

(2020). Nike, Colin Kaepernick, and the politicization of sports: Examining perceived organizational motives and public responses. Public Relations Review, 46, 101856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101856

31.

Kim

J. N.

Rhee

(2011). Strategic thinking about employee communication behavior (ECB) in public relations: Testing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(3), 243–268.

32.

Kim

(2017). Consumer responses to the food industry’s proactive and passive environmental CSR, factoring in price as CSR tradeoff. Journal of Business Ethics, 140, 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2671-8

33.

Kim

(2023). The effect of dialogic competencies in internal communication and D&I-oriented leadership on relational outcomes with minority employees: Focusing on the perspectives of Asian employees. Asian Journal of Communication, 33, 158–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2023.2181978

34.

Kim

(2024b). Cultivating a D&I climate in the workplace and mitigating microaggression against Asian employees: The role of strategic D&I leadership and motivating language. Korean Journal of Communication, 1, 26–42.

35.

Kim

(2025a). CEO activism: A strategic framework for topic selection, considering issue maturity and congruence. Corporate Communications An International Journal, 30, 956–976. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccij-03-2024-0043

36.

Kim

(2025b). A strategic approach to CEO activism: Issue selection and communication of motives. Journal of Marketing Communications, 31, 959–981. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2024.2357083

37.

Kim

Ferguson

M. A.

(2019). Are high-fit CSR programs always better? The effects of corporate reputation and CSR fit on stakeholder responses. Corporate Communications An International Journal, 24, 471–498. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccij-05-2018-0061

38.

Kim

Meganck

(2024). Fostering employee support for Corporate Social Advocacy (CSA) through Dialogic Internal Communication and Transformational Leadership. Journal of Public Relations Research, 37, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2024.2373250

39.

Kim

Meganck

(2025). The ripple effects of leadership’s motivating language: Cultivating employee support for corporate social advocacy and organizational trust. Public Relations Review, 51(4), 102615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2025.102615

40.

Lee

Kim

(2021). Cultivating employee creativity through strategic internal communication: The role of leadership, symmetry, and feedback seeking behaviors. Public Relations Review, 47(1), 101998.

41.

A. N.

Tan

H. H.

(2013). What happens when you trust your supervisor? Mediators of individual performance in trust relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1812

42.

Lin

Koopmann

Wang

(2020). How does workplace helping behavior step up or slack off? Integrating enrichment-based and depletion-based perspectives. Journal of Management, 46, 385–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318795275

43.

Lips-Wiersma

Wright

(2012). Measuring the Meaning of Meaningful Work: Development and Validation of the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS). Group & Organization Management, 37, 655–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112461578

44.

Liu

Getz

(2024). The moderating role of value alignment: How corporate social advocacy survives the polarized public responses. Public Relations Journal, 17, 1–48. https://instituteforpr.org/prj-17-1-2-liu/

45.

Liu

Guo

Liao

Wang

(2022). The effect of corporate social responsibility on employee advocacy behaviors: A perspective of conservation of resources. Chinese Management Studies, 16, 140–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/cms-08-2020-0325

46.

London

(2018). Leadership and advocacy: Dual roles for corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. In Rosenbach

W. E.

(Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership (pp. 259–278). Routledge.

47.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lutz

R. J.

(1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298905300204

48.

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, 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892

49.

Mayfield

(1970). The benefits of leader communication on part-time worker outcomes: A comparison between part-time and full-time employees using motivating language. Journal of Business Strategies, 23, 131–154.

50.

Mayfield

(2009). The role of leader motivating language in employee absenteeism. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943609338665

51.

Mayfield

(2010). Leader-level influence on motivating language: A two-level model investigation on worker performance and job satisfaction. Competitiveness Review, 20, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1108/10595421011080788

52.

Mayfield

(2017). Leadership communication: Reflecting, engaging, and innovating. International Journal of Business Communication, 54, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416675446

53.

Mayfield

Kopf

(1995). Motivating language: Exploring theory with scale development. International Journal of Business Communication, 32, 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369503200402

54.

Mayfield

M. R.

Kopf

(1998). The effects of leader motivating language on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 37(34), 235–248.

55.

Mayfield

Sharbrough

W. C.

(2015). Strategic vision and values in top leaders’ communications: Motivating language at a higher level. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414560282

56.

Mayfield

(2004). The effects of leader communication on worker innovation. American Business Review, 22, 46–51.

57.

Men

L. R.

Neill

Yue

C. A.

(2021). Examining the effects of symmetrical internal communication and employee engagement on organizational change outcomes. Public Relations Journal, 13(4), 1-19.

58.

Men

L. R.

Stacks

(2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic internal communication and employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(4), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908720

59.

Men

L. R.

Qin

Y. S.

Jin

(2022). Fostering employee trust via effective supervisory communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: Through the lens of motivating language theory. International Journal of Business Communication, 59, 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211020491

60.

Michaelson

Pratt

M. G.

Grant

A. M.

Dunn

C. P.

(2014). Meaningful work: Connecting Business Ethics and Organization Studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1675-5

61.

Mullins

Syam

(2014). Manager–salesperson congruence in customer orientation and job outcomes: The bright and dark sides of leadership in aligning values. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 34, 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2014.890905

62.

Overton

Kim

J. K.

Zhang

Huang

(2021). Examining consumer attitudes toward CSR and CSA messages. Public Relations Review, 47, 102095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102095

63.

Patagonia. (2023). Social responsibility. https://www.patagonia.com/social-responsibility/

64.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer

65.

Rim

Kim

K. H.

Cho

De Moya

(2024). Leading to social impact communication: Understanding corporate social advocacy (csa) from industry professional perspectives. Journal of Public Relations Research, 36, 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2024.2371879

66.

Rim

Dong

(2022). Triadic public-company-issue relationships and publics’ reactions to corporate social advocacy (CSA): An application of balance theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 34, 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2022.2071273

67.

Robertson

K. M.

O’Reilly

Hannah

D. R.

(2020). Finding meaning in relationships: The impact of network ties and structure on the meaningfulness of work. Academy of Management Review, 45, 596–619. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0242

68.

Ryan

R. M.

Frederick

(1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x

69.

Sandelands

L. E.

Boudens

C. J.

(2000). Feeling at work. In Fineman

(Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 46–63). Sage.

70.

Schade

Wang

van Prooijen

A. M.

(2022). Consumer skepticism towards Corporate-NGO partnerships: The impact of CSR motives, message frame and fit. Corporate Communications An International Journal, 27, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccij-04-2022-0048

71.

Schaefer

S. D.

Terlutter

Diehl

(2019). Is my company really doing good? Factors influencing employees’ evaluation of the authenticity of their company’s corporate social responsibility engagement. Journal of Business Research, 101, 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.030

72.

Schmeltz

(2014). Identical or just compatible? The utility of corporate identity values in communicating corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Business Communication, 51, 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525439

73.

Sullivan

J. J.

(1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 13, 104–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/258358

74.

Thelen

P. D.

(2021). Leadership and internal communication: Linking servant leadership, communication satisfaction, and employee advocacy. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 15, 440–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118x.2021.1984919

75.

Thelen

P. D.

Men

L. R.

(2023). Commentary: The role of internal communication in fostering employee advocacy: An exploratory study. International Journal of Business Communication, 60, 1441–1454. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420975832

76.

Thelen

P. D.

Yue

C. A.

Verghese

A. K.

(2022). Increasing employee advocacy through supervisor motivating language: The mediating role of psychological conditions. Public Relations Review, 48, 102253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102253

77.

Walden

J. A.

Kingsley Westerman

C. Y.

(2018). Strengthening the tie: Creating exchange relationships that encourage employee advocacy as an organizational citizenship behavior. Management Communication Quarterly, 32, 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318918783612

78.

Weick

K. E.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage publications.

79.

Welch

Jackson

P. R.

(2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Communications An International Journal, 12(2), 177–198.

80.

Yang

S.-U.

Kang

Kim

Lee

(2022). The effects of leadership in corporate social advocacy on positive employee outcomes. Journal of Public Relations Research, 34, 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2022.2123331

81.

Yue

C. A.

(2025). Creating organizational authenticity and identification: Effect of leaders’ motivating language and impact on employee advocacy. International Journal of Business Communication, 62, 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211035116

82.

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, 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420914066

83.

Yue

C. A.

Thelen

P. D.

Walden

(2023). How empathetic leadership communication mitigates employees’ turnover intention during COVID-19-related organizational change. Management Decision, 61, 1413–1433. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-01-2022-0011