Research Foundation had asked that the survey focus on IABC members ... Rather each communication department structure appears to be unique - a hybrid .... specialist roles) is invariably linked to complexity and, therefore, is also one ..... CCOs must hire people capable of being strategic thinkers and support their senior.
Structure of the Communication Department: An International Study
Report to the IABC Research Foundation Submitted by the International Study Team: Mr. Fraser Likely President and Managing Partner, Likely Communication Strategies Ltd., Canada Dr. Danny Moss Bank of America Professor of Corporate and Public Affairs, BELL Faculty, University of Chester, United Kingdom Dr. Krishnamurthy Sriramesh Professor and University Faculty Scholar Brian Lamb School of Communication Purdue University, United States Dr. Peter Stokes, Professor, Chester Business School University of Chester, United Kingdom Dr. Maria Aparecida Ferrari Professor of Public Relations School of Communication & Arts, University of São Paulo, Brazil Mr. Bert Regeer Vice President, Communications Shell International B.V., The Netherlands
Table of Contents List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... i List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. ii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose & Scope of the Study .............................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 6 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 6 Organizational Design ........................................................................................................... 7 Traditional & Configurational Approaches ........................................................................... 11 Evolving Structural Forms ................................................................................................... 16 Relationship Between Structure and Communications ....................................................... 24 A Critical Management Perspective .................................................................................... 29 Structure & the Communication Department....................................................................... 40 Variables / Influences on Organization & Functional Structures ......................................... 47 Role of Human Agency........................................................................................................ 51 International Perspectives on Organizational & Communication Department Structure ..... 54 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 57 Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 58 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY................................................................................................. 64 Literature Review................................................................................................................. 64 Qualitative Methods & Sampling Technique........................................................................ 64 Quantitative Methods & Sampling Technique ..................................................................... 66 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS & LINKAGES TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................... 70 Sample Profiling .................................................................................................................. 71 Key Findings from Qualitative & Quantitative Research...................................................... 76 RQ 1................................................................................................................................. 77 RQ 2.............................................................................................................................................. 91 RQ 3............................................................................................................................................ 105 RQ 4............................................................................................................................................ 115 RQ 5............................................................................................................................................ 124 RQ 6............................................................................................................................................ 134 RQ 7............................................................................................................................................ 141
Overall Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 151 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH QUESTION FINDINGS .................................... 154 RQ 1 .................................................................................................................................. 155 RQ 2 .................................................................................................................................. 161 RQ 3 .................................................................................................................................. 168 RQ 4 .................................................................................................................................. 171 RQ 5 .................................................................................................................................. 180 RQ 6 .................................................................................................................................. 183 RQ 7 .................................................................................................................................. 185
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW THEMES ........................................ 187 Literature Review Themes................................................................................................. 187 Structural Change Over Time............................................................................................ 188 From the Traditional Organizational Approach .................................................................. 190 From the Configurational Approach................................................................................... 192 The Significance of Organizational & Departmental Size .................................................. 198 Range of Factors ............................................................................................................... 202 International / Global Scope of Operations........................................................................ 204 Significance of Organizational & Societal Culture ............................................................. 207 Significance of Individual Perceptions ............................................................................... 210 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................. 214 Literature Themes ............................................................................................................. 214 Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 217 Overall Conclusions........................................................................................................... 219 CHAPTER 8: FUTURE RESEARCH........................................................................................ 226 CHAPTER 9: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK & DIAGNOSTIC MODEL ................................ 228 Background ....................................................................................................................... 228 Conceptual Framework & Diagnostic Model ..................................................................... 230 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................... 252 A. Literature Review References ....................................................................................... 252 B. List of Qualitative Research Participant Organizations ................................................. 258 C. Interview Summaries .................................................................................................... 259 D. Qualitative Research CCO Interview Questionnaire ..................................................... 296 E. Quantitative Research CCO On-Line Survey Questionnaire ........................................ 298 F. Quantitative Research On-Line Survey Frequencies ...............(accompanying document) G. Quantitative Research On-Line Survey Cross Tabulations ......(accompanying document)
i
List of Figures 2.1 Summary of Common Systems Models of Organization Design..................................... 9 2.2 Summary of the Characteristics of Mintzberg’s (1979) Five Organizational Configurations ..................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Characteristics of Different Models of Organizational Structure .................................... 18 2.4 Summary of Structural Forms / Models Associated with Anand and Daft’s (2007) Three Eras of Structural Development........................................................................................... 23 2.5 Summary of Structural Forms / Models Associated with Anand and Daft’s (2007) Three Eras of Structural Development........................................................................................... 36 4.1 RQ 1 Key Relationships ................................................................................................ 88 4.2 RQ 2 Key Relationships .............................................................................................. 103 4.3 RQ 3 Key Relationships .............................................................................................. 113 4.4 RQ 4 Key Relationships .............................................................................................. 122 4.5 RQ 5 Key Relationships .............................................................................................. 132 4.6 RQ 6 Key Relationships .............................................................................................. 139 4.7 RQ 7 Key Relationships .............................................................................................. 149 6.1 Structural Change Over Time...................................................................................... 189 6.2 From the Traditional Organizational Approach ............................................................ 192 6.3 From the Configurational Approach............................................................................. 196 6.4 The Significance of Organizational & Departmental Size ............................................ 201 6.5 Range of Factors ......................................................................................................... 202 6.6 International / Global Scope of Operations.................................................................. 205 6.7 Significance of Organizational & Societal Culture ....................................................... 209 6.8 Significance of Individual Perceptions ......................................................................... 211 9.1 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 231 9.2 Genetic Diagnostic Model............................................................................................ 235 9.3 Diagnostic Model for Less than 10 Employees ........................................................... 239 9.4 Diagnostic Model for Less than 25 Employees ........................................................... 241 9.5 Diagnostic Model for Less than 50 Employees ........................................................... 243 9.6 Diagnostic Model for Less than 100 Employees ......................................................... 246 9.7 Diagnostic Model for More than 100 Employees......................................................... 249
List of Tables 4.1 The Geographical Distribution of Sample Organizations............................................... 72 4.2 The Total Number of Employees in Sample Organizations........................................... 73 4.3 The Number of Employees in Communication Departments ........................................ 74 4.4 The Scope of the Communication Department Responsibilities ................................... 75 4.5 The Location of Headquarters of the Communication Department ............................... 76
ii
Executive Summary Questions about the factors that influence the design of the structure of the public relations / communication department long have interested the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). To that end, the IABC Research Foundation published a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) for the conduct of such a research study, aided by the generous financial support from five principal sponsors: Vale; Odebrecht; CEMIG; Unimed Rio; Farm Credit Canada; and IABC/Toronto. After a comprehensive competitive process that attracted 14 proposals, the Foundation awarded the contract for the project in late 2009 to an international team of researchers. The team comprised five members originally: Dr. Danny Moss; Dr. Krishnamurthy Sriramesh; Dr. Maria Aparecida Ferrari; Mr. Bert Regeer; and Mr. Fraser Likely. Dr. Peter Stokes joined the team half way through the project, to be the team’s sixth member. This document is the final report of the team’s research effort, a 52-month long and comprehensive examination of communication department structure and the factors that influence the choice of a department’s organizational structure. The Foundation’s RFP, which asked that research be conducted with communication departments found in the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors, described the goal of the research study as: “This three-part international study calls for progressively deep investigations of top-performing communication functions within organizations, with the goal of identifying the factors that influence communication department structure and effectiveness.” (Emphasis added) The research team added a fourth part. The team recognized the need to underpin the elments of qualitative and quantitative empirical research and the development of a conceptual framework and diagnostic model with a comprehensive review of relevant literature. To support the main goal, the research team set three objectives: (1) the identification of communication department structures; (2) the identification of factors that influenced communication department structure; and (3) the identification of which of these factors that are the most important in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department.
iii The significant themes that were identified from the Literature Review as particularly important for the development of this study’s research questions and for the subsequent fieldwork were as follows:
Structural change occurs over time;
From a traditional perspective, the key dimensions of structure comprise complexity, specialization, centralization and configuration;
From the configuration perspective, five key structural models dominated the literature: Simple Form; U Form; M Form; Matrix Form; and Virtual Form;
The significance of both organizational and communication department size emerged as the key initial determinants of department structure;
The need to recognize that structure and structural choice decisions are contingent on a range of factors (rather than simple cause-and-effect relationships), not the least being the role of the human agents involved;
The significance of the international / global scope of an organization’s operations on structural choice decisions and functional structures;
The significance of organizational and societal culture in shaping functional structures; and
The significance of individual perceptions amongst key decision-makers (as opposed to, and in relation to, wider agents in the organization) responsible for determining structural options. These themes were taken into consideration when the research team developed
the seven Research Questions that follow: RQ 1: Are there specific structures / models for communication departments? RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication department structure and organizational structure? RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication department structure? RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy? RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions?
iv RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication department structures, what are they? RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication department structure? For the qualitative dimension of the research, the research team conducted interviews with 26 Chief Communication Officers (CCOs), 11 more than the RFP requirement of 15, with all located in different countries around the globe. The quantitative dimenion was an extensive, on-line survey of CCOs. Originally, the IABC Research Foundation had asked that the survey focus on IABC members solely, with the intention of reaching the highest-level IABC member in each organization surveyed the CCO or head of the primary communication department. Given the low number of members that qualified as CCOs out of the total IABC membership, the research team had to broaden the scope of the survey to include any CCO working in the for-profit or non-profit sectors. Using snowball techniques, the team finally arrived at a total of 278 usable surveys, with survey returns coming from all five continents. In this way, the CCOs who were interviewed and the CCOs who were surveyed were drawn from a broad international sample of organizations. After a systematic presentation of the findings (see Chapter 4), a detailed synthesis and discussion of the these findings for each of the seven RQs (Chapter 5) and a concise discussion of the findings with relation to the the eight key literature themes identified in the Literature Review (Chapter 6), the research team then drew a series of overall conclusions (Chapter 7). The discussions and conclusions are presented here below. Research Questions (Chapter 5 in the report) RQ 1: Are there specific structures / models for communication departments? Our evidence led us to conclude that no single universal structural model could be identified that could be applied to all communication departments. Moreover, no dominant set of three, four or five models emerged that might be applied individually or collectively to encompass structural variations across all communication departments. Rather each communication department structure appears to be unique - a hybrid
v structure, particularly in terms of its horizontal structure - and customized to each department’s situation. Thus, our study’s strong inference was that communication departments require specific structural adaptation, based on an original weighing of all relevant factors. RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication department structure and organizational structure? Here our research led us to conclude that there was not necessarily a strong relationship between the overall organizational structure (be it simple, U-, M-, matrix or virtual form) and the communication department structure. However, some evidence pointed to the existence of a secondary relationship. For example, we noted a secondary relationship between the horizontal structure of a for-profit organization operating internationally (irrespective of its overall organizational form) and the communication department’s attempt to mirror the same international scope in how it structured its operations. RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication department structure? Synthesizing the evidence that we gathered led us to conclude that the most critical factors influencing departmental structure comprise: (i) human choice, especially by the CCO but also including to a lesser degree the CEO and the communication department’s management team; (ii) the way the concepts of Complexity and Specialization manifest themselves with regard to the horizontal structure of the department; (iii) the way the concepts of Centralization and Configuration are applied with regard to departmental integration (particularly when the organization and the communication department have international operations); and (iv) the way departmental size serves as a constraining ‘threshold’ factor, determining what structural dimensions realistically can be considered. In particular, with regard to department size, with many communication departments numbering less than ten or even five employees, talk, therefore, of vertical structural choice decisions may be, in such cases, largely meaningless. Hence, the focus of the effect of departmental size on
vi departmental structure is inevitably on the larger and often internationally based organizations. RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy? Little, if any, evidence emerged that supported any clear link between a particular structural configuration for the communication department, or its position within the overall organization structure, and any measure of organizational efficacy. RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions? We found no evidence to suggest that communication department structures remain constant across multiple organizations operating internationally in the same region or across regions. On the other hand, some limited evidence was found to support the possibility of similarities in ‘intra-firm’ communication department structures across geographical regions. Here, the key consideration appears to be the relationship between having regional communication units reporting directly or functionally to the CCO, and the loci of the participants responsible for the development of communication strategies that affect the whole organization. RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication department structures, what are they? Our evidence suggested that while most of the CCOs with international responsibilities work in U-form or matrix structures, there is no one, dominant structural model for communication departments that operate globally - and thus there are differences among all hybrid structures. A key difference appeared to be in the reporting structure for regional units, whether these were direct, functional or not at all to the CCO. Communication departments in matrix form organizations that operate internationally appeared to be more likely to integrate regional and HQs communication departments through direct or functional reporting and joint communication strategizing.
vii RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication department structure? On balance, we concluded that no universally effective communication department structure could be identified. Neither the country where the organizational and communication department HQs was located, nor the structure of the organization, nor the size of the organization, nor the geographical reach of the organization, nor the business / industry sector in which the organization operated had any marked effect on communication department structure. One reason for the failure to identify a universally effective communication department structure is that there is no single universal structure for communication departments. In effect, communication department structures are hybrids, paralleling the individuality of the host organization, and under regular review, adapting regularly to be as effective as possible under changing circumstances. Themes That Arose from the Literature Review (Chapter 6 in the report) Structural Change Occurs Over Time From the literature revirew, we identified the notion of ‘continued change in functional structure over time’, albeit at a different pace and degree in differnet contexts. While such on-going ‘structural change’ may not in itself directly influence communication department structural choices at a particular point in time, nevertheless CCOs need to be aware that no communication department structure can be considered immune from change even in the shorter term. Thus, one danger in the quest to identify a single universal communication department structure is that it ignores the essential dynamic of organizational life that dictates the need for constant renewal and change, albeit that in the short-term, a year or two perhaps, structure per se may remain relatively constant. Our findings suggest that any communication department structure is non-permanent and that successful CCOs review and adapt structure on a regular basis.
viii From the Traditional Perspective, the Key Dimensions of Structure Comprise Complexity, Specialization, Centralization and Configuration We concluded that the traditional concepts of complexity, specialization, centralization and configuration, as identified in our review of organizational literature, are equally important factors that do indeed influence communication department structure. Further, we concluded that complexity (the extent of differentiation, the number of different component parts and the degree to which work is divided up into sets of operational activities / skills) is inherent in the structure of any sizeable communication department (a department maintaining a range of disciplines and horizontal organizational options such as by activity / service, by internal client and by stakeholder) and, as such, is one of the most important factors to be considered in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department. Moreover, we concluded that specialization (the degree to which work is undertaken by specialist roles) is invariably linked to complexity and, therefore, is also one of the most important factors in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department. The third factor, centralization (the degree to which power and control over decisions is held within the top management hierarchy), while important for a number of reasons (role of the CEO in reviewing communication department structure; CCO reporting relationship with the CCO; CCO as a member of the executive committee; CCO input being valued), is an important factor in designing an effective departmental structure where concern is for the integration of the function as a single communication department. Finally, in the case of configuration (the ‘shape’ of the organization’s hierarchical structure, including chain of command and span of control), we concluded that this is an important factor in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department, particularly when the department moves across a size threshold and requires an additional level of stratification. From the Configuration Perspective, Five Structural Models Dominated the Literature: (Simple Form; U Form; M Form; Matrix Form; and Virtual Form) We concluded that the choice of configuration perspective (simple form; U form; M form; matrix form; or virtual form) for the organization as a whole is a factor that influences communication department structure - particularly the need to be ‘close to’
ix internal clients (typically through account executive positions) - but that this choice of an organizational model, other than perhaps in the case of the choice of a matrix form structure, is not necessarily one of the most important factors in the determination of communication department structure. The Significance of Both Organizational and Communication Department Size Emerged as the Key Initial Determinants of Department Structure One obvious conclusion to emerge from the study was that the size of the organization (since size here correlates with organizational complexity and configuration from a traditional perspective as well as geographical reach) is a key-determining factor influencing decisions about communication department structure. However, it is the size of the communication department itself (where size correlates with increased vertical hierarchy and thus increased complexity and configuration), that is undoubtedly the key initial factor affecting the design of an effective organizational structure for the communication department. The Need to Recognize that Structure and Structural Choice Decisions Are Contingent on a Range of Factors (Rather Than Simple Cause-and-Effect Relationships) Reviewing the evidence we had collected, we concluded that in understanding and making sense of current communication deparment structures is it necessary to look to a ‘range of factors’ that are involved in determining individual department structures. Thus, CCOs need to be mindful of balancing such an aray of factors, rather than looking at any one or two factors only when reorganization is being discussed. Our findings demonstrate that not one specific factor is a structural ‘magic bullet’ and that all factors must be considered against each other. The Significance of the International / Global Scope of an Organization’s Operations on Structural Choice Decisions and Functional Structures One logical conclusion we found was that an international / global scope for the organization (where geographical spread correlates with a continental or global scope of operations for the CCO and the possibility of regionally based communication units) serves as at least an important consideration influencing communication department structure, albeit not necessarily the most important factor influencing decisions on
x communication department structure. Geographical considerations tend to come to the fore particularly in internationally based operations where it is deemed crucial to be ‘close to’ regionally based internal clients regardless of the decentralized nature of the organizational structure. The Significance of Organizational and Societal Culture in Shaping Functional Structures We concluded that neither organizational nor societal culture, as identified in our literature review, are factors that directly influence communication department structural choice, though we acknowledge that organizational culture may have an indirect part to play. There was certainly no indication of any significant impact of societal culture in determining communication department structure. The Significance of Individual Perceptions Amongst Key Decision-Makers (as Opposed to, and in Relation to, Wider Human Agents in the Organization) Responsible for Determining Structural Options Finally, but by no means least, our findings pointed to the importance of the prevailing views, prejudices and experiences of key decision-makers who have the influence and power within organizational structures to determine the current communication department structural choices. However, while such broader power structures may be an important influence, our evidence also revealed that CCOs often have considerable latitude themselves to organize as they saw fit within their departments. Overall Conclusions (Chapter 7 in the report) C1 There appears to be considerable instability or uncertainty about organizational / communication department structures - with, in most cases, a sense of on-going transition and regular change in structure both at the organizational and communication department levels. This apparent instability and uncertainty about communication department structure is important to note because it may underpin the prevailing mind-sets that are in operation when considering the questions of structures and the role of communication departments within them. This is not to suggest that organizational settings and communication department lived experiences are chaotic and disorganized, however it
xi does underscore a continuing need by the CCO for agility, adaptability and flexibility in relation to evolving markets, environments and organizational direction and prioritization as well as in relation to the churn that may accompany the arrival of a new CEO. Moreover, it may well be that even where CCOs have experienced radical and transformative change in their organizational structures to which they are forced to react, for the most part, these actually seem to occur through the iterative and gradual processes of sharing sense-making and building up ‘shared pictures’ of what seems relevant and appropriate. That is, CCOs are unlikely to be left to their own devises to force a radical reorganization; rather they are more often than not going to be part of a management team process, in which they participate and thus may input to and respond to collective decisions as well as to organizational directions taken by others. In essence, this infers that it is important not to think of contemporary organizational settings as disorganized, chaotic and difficult to control. There will always be substantial energy required in order to constantly assess and adapt to such environments, but the experience of this is likely to appear as a range of ongoing interactions and discussions and meeting of minds between individuals and groups. C2 Whatever the merits of differing horizontal structural configurations in the communication department, as far as the overall department structure is concerned, departmental size appears to outweigh all other considerations when it comes to the number and complexity of options available to choose from for departmental structure. As is evidenced in Chapter 4, over half the respondent organizations were found to employ less than 5000 people, and more pertinently, around three quarters of respondents indicated that less than 25 people were employed in the communication function. The relatively small-sized communication departments were not only found in smaller organizations or not-for profits organizations, but rather were found to typify communication departments across organizations of all sizes. It was only in the case of the very largest, often internationally based, organizations that the communication departments reached a size where the issues of vertical structure merited more careful consideration. Increased size means additional options to deal with factors such as complexity, specialization and configuration. It may well be that it is more difficult to find
xii a workable, if not the right, structural option for a smaller sized communication department than it would be for one much larger. C3 It is the CCO’s effective use of the human capital value that she/he has that makes the chosen hybrid communication department structure work. The focus of this study has been on the search for the most effective form of structure for communication departments, one that might best contribute to organizational performance and success. As the evidence presented seems to suggest, this quest for the definitive structure seems destined to be unsuccessful in that no one structure can be expected to suit all organizations or all scenarios. Equally, as the evidence of this study repeatedly highlights, given the relatively small size of the communication departments found in the majority of organizations, structure per se is unlikely to prove sole critical factor determining effective performance. Rather, what many respondents have pointed out is that the key to effective performance lies in recruiting and retaining the best people for the communication function - those who are able to influence and operate professionally and highly effectively - and putting them in the right positions in the structure (the right people in the right positions in the right structure). Again, this may be more important for CCOs who lead departments smaller in size, where recruiting ‘talent’ may be difficult but placing that ‘talent’ in the best possible position in relatively flat structure may be even more daunting. Here, it also was clear that CCOs emphasized strongly the importance of effective leadership and management expertise, to support these right people in the right positions. This is not to dismiss the potential importance of department structure, particularly in terms of how it facilitates or inhibits access to senior management, and how it may impact on the control and direction of what might be geographically dispersed communication offices across the organizational landscape. But, as one commentator explained: “structure alone is not the most important thing … it is about having the best people.” Thus, perhaps one of the key messages emerging from this study is that the most effective communication departments - those that are best able to contribute to organizational success - are likely to be those that recognize the need to balance the
xiii importance of having both the ‘right’ people and the ‘right’ functional structure for the current situation and moment in time. While this may seem obvious, the challenge is to identify what constitutes the ‘right’ structure and to secure the services of the right people. For most smaller organizations and smaller communication departments, the emphasis will clearly be on the people ‘side of the equation’, but as the scope and size of the organization and its communication activities and office grow, structure begins to figure ever more prominently in terms of ensuring the effective management and effective coordination of all communication efforts.
C4 Communication department structures like organizational structures, irrespective of industry sector, HQ location or geographical scope, appear to have been resistant to, or have seen little to be gained from, a move to adopt some of the more organic / critical forms of structure. Returning to the central focus for this study, namely the question of what role communication department structure may play in facilitating or constraining organizational effectiveness, the evidence gathered offers a somewhat inconclusive answer to this question. Clearly no ‘magic bullet’ solution has emerged in terms of one universally effective structural model that communication departments might rush to adopt or emulate. Perhaps it would be unrealistic to expect such an outcome given the diversity of the organizations examined in terms of industry sectors, geographic location, sizes, longevity, ownership patterns, etc. Rather, we found a variety of structures as being in play at the organizational level. Moreover, as we have already highlighted, there also seems to be potentially an unlimited repertoire of structures in play both at the communication department level, which appear to be aligned across the conventional / traditional style of structure. However, the evidence gathered points firmly to a strong preference for conventional / traditional structures across all industry sectors explored as well as at the organizational and functional levels. Although we came across a small number of examples of ‘virtual’, ‘hollow’ and ‘networked organic’ / ‘critical’ structural models, in our research, these were comparatively rare and certainly nowhere near as popular as the literature might suggest.
xiv It is interesting to note that while the organizational literature has suggested a trend towards the adoption of more organic structures within contemporary organizations, little evidence was found within this study of any of the newer, more neural or organic forms of structure, even amongst the larger organizations examined. This lack of any significant evidence of more neural or organic structures at the organizational level, let alone at the communication level, might be interpreted as demonstrating a conservative mindset and bias within the sample of organizations examined. Perhaps, this new thinking about structural forms has not penetrated amongst them, or at least not sufficiently enough to bring about change. On the other hand, it might well be that such claims for the growth of newer more organic and less conventional structures has been exaggerated, and hence the lack of evidence of their existence within the study is not particularly significant. Whatever the merits of such arguments and putative explanations for the relatively slow development of new communication department structural thinking, we believe that the views expressed across this study, which represent a reasonably wide-ranging and international crosssection of organizations, suggest that the majority of communication departments are operating very much against a backdrop of what might be termed ‘conventional’ or ‘traditional’ organizational structures. That is not to say that reliance on largely conventional / traditional department structures has adversely impacted, in any obvious way, the effectiveness of the communication function and its ability to contribute to organizational success. It is more to suggest that if the characteristics of the matrix form model seem to be advantageous to the communication department, how more advantageous might the virtual, hollow and networked organic / critical structural models, with the possibility of more fluid boundaries, shifting patterns over time and greater flexibility, be to the department? C5 Over and above questions about structure, the study revealed a number of critical success factors for the CCO and her or his management of the department. Although not simply confined the structural variables, a number of critical success factors emerged from the study that CCOs saw as helping to shape or
xv constrain the performance of the communication department. These included the following key factors:
CCOs must hire people capable of being strategic thinkers and support their senior staff to operate at a strategic level;
CCOs must recognize the importance of offering strategic business advice and the role that communication plays in supporting business planning and strategizing;
CCOs must find the correct balance between the number of specialists and the number of generalists employed on staff;
CCOs must ensure that policies, guidelines, processes, strategies, plans and accountabilities are integrated with resources across the whole function and that there is clear accountability across units including clear KPIs for communication operations; and
CCOs must appreciate the importance of trying to maintain functional structures that are flexible and fluid, to respond to ever changing environments as well as to maintain an appropriate work / life balance.
Next, the study addressed the research project’s three objectives and it’s overarching goal. Research Study Goal & Objectives Goal: “This three-part international study calls for progressively deep investigations of top performing communication functions within organizations, with the goal of identifying the factors that influence communication department structure and effectiveness.” As we reported in the literature review, few studies have attempted to examine structure exclusively at the functional or departmental level. None has taken a “progressively deep investigation.” This study is the first, in-depth attempt do so at the departmental level and the first to do so with the public relations / communication department. From that deep investigation, the research team identified the factors that are the most important in influencing the design of the structure of a communication department in a for-profit or not-for-profit organization. Objective #1: The identification of communication department structures
xvi The research team found that, to use a common analogy, communication department structures are like snowflakes: no two are exactly alike. Each communication department structure is a hybrid, unique in comparison to all others, and customized to be as effective as possible in ever changing circumstances. Objective #2: The identification of factors that influenced communication department structure The research team identified a range of factors, including: the degree of communication department complexity desired; the degree of communication department specialization desired; the degree of communication department centralization desired; the degree of communication department configuration desired; the organization’s current structural model; organizational size; communication department size; the organization’s degree of international scope of operations; the expertise and talent of the employees the CCO has on staff; the perceptions of the CEO; and the perceptions of the CCO. Objective #3: The identification of which of these factors that are the most important in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department. The most important factors identified by the research team were: organizational and departmental size; the perspectives of the CCO; the concepts of Complexity and Specialization; and the concepts of Centralization and Configuration. Finally, in response to the requirement in the RFP for the creation of a “diagnostic tool,” the research team developed a conceptual framework and generic diagnostic model based on the conclusions drawn from the research findings. Conceptual Framework and Diagnostic Model for a Communication Structure The conceptual framework, from which the research team went on to construct the diagnostic model, was adapted from the notion of the organizational ‘value chain’ first advanced by Porter (1985). This conceptual framework attempts to capture and represent the relevant dimensions of organizational and departmental structure, as well as those macro environmental and organizational influences that often help shape structural design decisions. A fuller explanation of the development this framework and
xvii the accompanying diagnostic model for communication departmental structure can be found in Chapter 9. In this executive summary, we provide an overview of the conceptual framework and the basic generic diagnostic model. In Chapter 9, we have created specific diagnostic models for each of the five key communication department size categories, with departments ranging from less than 10 people to departments of over 100 people. The development of this set of diagnostic models was deemed necessary because of importance of departmental size as a determining factor in communication department structural design. Each of these five diagnostic models set out in Chapter 9, includes a set of questions that a CCO should answer as they ‘walk through’ each part of the model. The conceptual framework follows: Generic Conceptual Framework of the Key Dimensions of Communication Department Structure and the Key Factors Shaping Decisions About Department Structure
xviii The generic diagnostic model which follows identifies five key stages which CCOs can work through, each containing a number of factors or considerations that CCOs will need to take into account and reflect upon in establishing or making any significant changes to the communication department structure. From this analysis, the CCO can then progress to work through the appropriate diagnostic model (appropriate to the actual or planned size of communication department they will be managing).
Communication Department Structural Design: Generic Diagnostic Model COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN: GENERIC DIAGNOSTIC MODEL IMPORTANT FACTORS Each of the factors that follow directly below should be considered. Consider each in order, working systematically through the key choice decisions relating to structural dimensions of the department.
DEPARTMENTAL SIZE CATEGORIES UP TO 10 EMPLOYEES
UP TO 25 EMPLOYEES
UP TO 50 EMPLOYEES
UP TO 100 EMPLOYEES
MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES
MACRO / MESO ENVIRONMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The starting point for any structural design considerations must be how any structure will fit with and relate to the environmental forces impacting on the industry and the individual organization. Economic conditions, socio-cultural changes and regulatory controls are just some of the external environmental considerations facing decision-makers.
INTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Departmental structural decisions must also take account of internal infrastructural considerations such as the prevailing command and control systems, the type of technology information systems available or required, the type of HRM policies and staff recruitment capabilities and the training available and required and what services maybe outsourced and how any such outsourcing relationships will be managed.
ORGANIZATIONAL Structural Form Geographical Scope
The Structural Form of the organization refers to the different organizational forms: simple form; Uform; M-form; matrix form; and virtual form. Structures became increasingly decentralized moving from the more centralized simple form and U-form to the more decentralized M-form, matrix form and virtual form. In the research, the majority of communication departments were found in either Uform or matrix form organizational structures. The Geographical Scope of the organization refers to the reach or breadth of the organization and the number of locations outside of its headquarters where employees are situated, be the locations situated region-wide, country wide, continent-wide and/or globally. In the research, the majority of CCOs with international responsibilities worked in matrix form organizations.
xix
Here the CCO should identify and consider the type of structural form or forms in place at headquarters and in geographical regions and then consider the geographical spread of the organization. The ability to be ‘close to’ internal clients should be considered, since proximity improves the ability of the communication department to support other departments, business lines or regions in the organization as separate managed accounts. CEO CHOICE Communication Integration CCO Reporting
Integration refers to the degree to which the organization’s full communication department is centralized or decentralized and the degree to which it works collectively. Full integration may be achieved with a single communication department that spans the organization, both at headquarters and in the organization’s regions. For the organization with a number of independent communication departments, at headquarters and/or in the organization’s regions, partial integration may be achieved if there is a recognized primary communication department and CCO, with the other departments reporting functionally to that CCO so as to have a high degree of formalization and standardization of communication policies, procedures, processes and plans across the organization. Non-integration refers to an organization’s communication function that comprises two or more independent communication departments, with each separate department reporting differently within the organization’s structure. In the research, integration as a single department occurred in approximately 60% of the cases, with functional integration in approximately half of the remaining cases. CCO Reporting refers to the executive to whom the CCO reports, upwards. In the research, just over half of all CCOs reported to the CEO/Chair, regardless of whether the CCO led a communication department of fewer than 10 employees or one of more than 100. A similar percentage sat on the highest-level executive committee in the organization. Over 40% reported to other functions (though none of these were dominant, with only a small number of CCOs reporting to a head of marketing, investor relations or government relations). Here the CCO should identify and consider the CEO’s (and/or Board of Directors’ and/or executive team’s) preference for a single communication department or for a number of separate communication departments within an overall communication function. If the preference is for more than one department, then the CCO should consider the preference for the role of the CCO in integrating the communication function through functional reporting or other means. Whether one department, a function with separate and independent departments or a function with separate and independent departments integrated through the CCO, the CCO should consider to whom the CCO reports as well as to whom, if there are other departments, to whom those heads report. The CCO should consider ‘unfettered access’ to the CEO and all executives, regardless of to whom the CCO reports, including through membership on the highest-level executive committees. The ability to achieve the best ‘positioning’ of the organization’s communication function should be considered, but since the research showed that there was no correlation between reporting to the CEO and communication department structure, then ‘unfettered access’ across the organization and being ‘close to’ their most important internal clients should be taken into consideration.
CCO CHOICE Core Disciplines Employee ‘Talent’,
The Core Disciplines refer to the primary sub-functions (such as: external communication; internal communication; media relations; issues management; web communication; social media communication; marketing communication; membership communication; government relations; etc.; etc.) that the communication department will provide. If there is more than one department, it refers to the disciplines the department will specialize in, leaving other disciplines to other departments. In the research, the vast majority of CCOs led a ‘full-service’ department, having responsibility for at least these core disciplines: external communication/corporate communication/public relations/reputation management, internal/employee communication, media relations, issues management and web/digital communication - regardless of the size of the department or whether department was integrated or not. Less than half had additional responsibilities, such as for marketing communication, government relations, public affairs or corporate social responsibility.
xx Employee ‘Talent’ refers to the individual and collective capabilities and competencies of department employees. It also refers to the leadership and management expertise of supervisors and/or managers as well as technical, advisory and strategic skill sets. It also refers to intangibles such as: internal client compatibility; succession planning; and experience levels. In the research, respondents described the competencies of supervisors, managers and directors (their strategic communication knowledge levels, their management skills and their leadership skills) as important factors in determining an organizational structure. Here the CCO should consider the prioritization of these core disciplines weighed against how they will be delivered (see complexity and specialization in the following section) first before considering existing employee capabilities and who will deliver these disciplines. Then the CCO should consider the need for additional competencies and whether new ‘talent’ should be brought in through employment, outsourcing and/or contracting-out. HORIZONTAL STRUCTURE Complexity Specialization
Complexity refers to the number and type of component parts – or separate units – organized horizontally within the communication department and on what basis these units were created. In the research, department component parts or units were built around communication activities and services (specialized technical practice areas or skill sets such as: writing/editing; planning; research / evaluation; web site governance, posting and maintenance; media relations; events / exhibits; graphic design and production; social media channels; audio / visual production; advertising; translation / revision; speech writing; etc.), stakeholder groups (such as local community; environmental; investor; customer; supplier; donor; member; employee, government; business partner; etc.), internal clients (such as operational business line / unit; geographic / regional office; staff functions like HR; Marketing; Finance; Legal; Sales; Fundraising; CEO’s office; etc.), broad general functions (such as relationship management; corporate social responsibility; etc.) or geography. In the research, CCOs of small and mid sized communication departments organized their employees into units based first on specific units for activities and services, then on specific units for a stakeholder group or groups, and finally on specific units for an internal client or groups. On the other hand, CCOs of large communication departments organized their employees into units first on specific units for internal clients, second on specific units for activities and services and finally on specific units for stakeholder groups. Should there be specialized units for each discipline (external communication/corporate communication/public relations/reputation management, internal/employee communication, media relations, issues management and web/digital communication). Should there be specialized units mainly based on specific communication activities, services and practice areas? Should there be units based on the organization’s stakeholders? Should there be units based on each internal client? Should there be units for communication department processes such as program or product tasking and approvals, communication policies and procedures or budgeting / contracting? Should there be units for recruitment / retention and learning / training? Complexity refers to all of these questions. Specialization refers to the assignment of communication roles and responsibilities, both to units and to employee positions. A specialist unit or position would have a single role and responsibility, while a unit or position with a number of roles and responsibilities is a generalist. In the research, the combination of the complexity and specialization factors to department positions and units produced a unique and customized structure – a hybrid – for each department. A hybrid structure raises questions of how specialist and/or generalist employees should be combined into a unit or how units should be combined into a division. Here the CCO, understanding the resources allocated and thus the potential size of the department (number of employees) should consider what degree of complexity and specialization is required in the department’s horizontal structure, so as to: provide the chosen core disciplines; maximize employee capabilities; be close to internal clients; and match the organization’s geographical reach. Complexity refers to the number of units (boxes on an organizational chart), with each ‘unit’ consisting of one or more than one employee. Each unit is differentiated by whether it is organized by activity/service, by stakeholder, by internal client, by function, by region, etc. Specialization refers
xxi to whether each unit and/or each employee has single responsibility (specialist) or multiple responsibilities (generalist). The ability to ‘balance’ competing factors in a ‘best possible’ hybrid structure should be considered. VERTICAL STRUCTURE Centralization Configuration
Centralization refers to the degree to which power and control over decisions is held within the top management hierarchy. A total centralization of power would have all employees report to the CCO, with the department having two levels of strata. Stratification refers to the number of reporting levels – the hierarchy – in the communication department and thus is a representation of the degree of centralization. It also refers to the hierarchy of employee position classifications, such as officer, supervisor, manager, director and Chief Communication Officer. The greater number of strata, the greater degree of decentralization of power and control. In the research, 84% of CCOs managed a communication department with 2 or 3 levels of hierarchy, while 13% managed one with 4 levels and 3% managed a department with 5 or more levels. Configuration refers to the scope of management responsibilities, including the chain of command and the span of control of each supervisor or manager. It also refers to the capacity of the management team, including the leadership and management competencies of individual managers. What this suggests is that the number of officers in units under a supervisor may not be equal from supervisor to supervisor, with different spans of control. The same is true across the number of managers who manage supervisors or directors who direct managers. In the research, some supervisors, managers and/or directors had more direct reports than their peers did. Or, looking at the situation differently, a manager or director with distinct responsibilities (such as acting as corporate spokesperson or account manager for the department’s most important internal client) had a smaller number of direct reports. The number of component parts or units may differ from supervisor-to-supervisor, manager-to-manager and director-to-director dependent on the individual competencies and how the CCO decides to deploy those competencies. Here the CCO, again understanding the resources available, should consider the numbers of levels of stratification based on potential supervisor, manager and/or director chain of command and their span of control and thus the degree of decentralization required in the department.
In summary, this final report, produced by the six-member international research team, provides:
A comprehensive literature review;
The results of the qualitative and quantitative research program, comprising a series of 26 interviews with CCOs based around the world supplemented by an on-line survey of 278 CCOs who were located on all five continents;
A set of considered conclusions based on the RQs and on the key themes identified in the Literature Review; and
A conceptual framework, a generic diagnostic model and a set of five specific diagnostic models based on the five main categories of communication departmental size.
xxii It is perhaps not surprising to find that no two communication departments are likely to have the same structure. In fact, all communication department structures are hybrids, customized each time to each communication department’s unique situation. Department structures generally appear to have little permanency. It appears that departmental structures are reviewed regularly, in general at least every three years if not more often. In designing and reviewing department structures, it is vital that CCOs consider the constellation of factors that might demand or shape structural change. A review of the effectivenss of the existing structure is needed whenever circumstances change within the organization and / or there is significant change in the external environment. While this extensive study has highlighted the fact that for many organizations, communication department structure is less important than the experience and competence of the individuals employed within the function, nevertheless, where departments do comprise a significant number of employees, structural design is undoubtedly important in ensuring the effective deployment, organization and management of departmental resources. The research team ultimately discovered that communication department structural design can be quite complicated and subject to a variety of external and internal influences. In this respect, this study marks the first significant, in-depth and detailed, study of communication department structure.
1
Chapter 1 Introduction Background Questions about the structure of the Public Relations / Communication (PR/Communication) department long have interested the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). Since the 1970s, IABC’s salary surveys have included questions about communication function structure and organization. IABC also sponsored a 15-year program of research, popularly called the Excellence study, which examined the organization of the PR/Communication function as part of a more fulsome study of excellence in public relations and communication management. The Foundation also has sponsored such research projects as the Corporate Doctrine Research Project: How Companies Handle the Communications Function; Profiles 85, 87, 89, 97, 2000 and 2002; and Best Practices in Employee Communication. Unfortunately, these as well as other IABC research activities did not provide the detailed information needed on this topic. While this body of research has nibbled at the edges by providing information on factors that may affect the structure of the communication department, the research has not provided evidence of the structural models employed by communication departments nor on the relationship of these factors (or others) to the choice of a particular structural design. IABC staff leaders have stated that one of the most common requests for information from members each year, if not the most frequent request, is for advice on how to structure a PR/Communication department. IABC members - and non-members as well – have sought a depth of knowledge that will allow them to make an informed comparison between their own communication department structure and (1) various structural models and their underlying principles and (2) structures employed by other communication departments. Typically, this need is greatest amongst Chief Communication Officers (CCOs), senior leaders of PR/Communication functions. CCOs wish to understand the factors that influence the development of a structure for organizing into units the human capital allocated to
2 communication. They require a guide to assess the different structural models and their permeations. Heretofore, this depth of knowledge has not existed. In 2002, the Foundation’s Think Tank Panel identified “structuring a communication department” as a top priority for Foundation research efforts. In 2006 and 2007, taking action to fill this gap in the PR/Communication body of knowledge, the IABC Research Foundation convened an expert panel of senior communication department leaders headquartered in North America and then surveyed non North American leaders to develop the parameters for a research project that would examine communication department structure. In 2007, the Foundation launched Profile 2007, which had two parts. The first was a salary survey that has since been completed. The second was to be “a comprehensive study of organizational structure and function of communication departments.” To that end, the Foundation let a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) in 2007 and then revised the RFP. During the spring of 2009, the Foundation issued a second RFP for the conduct of such a research study. The Foundation had secured the financial support of five sponsors: Vale; Odebrecht; CEMIG; Unimed Rio; Farm Credit Canada; and IABC/Toronto. The project was to focus on the communication department and the factors that influence communication department structure. After a comprehensive competitive process that attracted 14 proposals, the Foundation awarded the contract for the project in the late 2009 to an international team of researchers. This team originally had five members - three public relations and communication academics, one public relations and communication senior management executive and one senior public relations and communication management consultant. A fourth academic - Dr. Peter Stokes - was added to the team over the course of the project because of his extensive business and corporate organizational design knowledge. Team members were: Dr. Danny Moss, Bank of America Professor of Corporate and Public Affairs, BELL Faculty, University of Chester, United Kingdom; Dr. Peter Stokes, Professor, Chester Business School, University of Chester, United Kingdom; Dr. Krishnamurthy Sriramesh, Professor and University Faculty Scholar, Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University, United States; Dr. Maria Aparecida Ferrari, Professor of Public Relations, School of Communication & Arts, University of São Paulo, Brazil; Mr. Bert Regeer, Vice President
3 Communications, Shell International B.V., The Netherlands; and Mr. Fraser Likely, President and Managing Partner, Likely Communication Strategies Ltd., Canada. The team composition had a global spread, with members being based originally when the project began on four of the five continents. This document is the final report of the team’s research effort, a 52 month long comprehensive examination of communication department structure and the factors that influence the choice of departmental organizational structure. It was an interesting journey. The team learned (1) that very little specific, in-depth research had been conducted previously on communication department structural models and thus we were treading new ground, (2) that what limited research that had been conducted on organizational design was directed at the enterprise or organization wide level and not at the level of a business line or a staff function (such as Human Resources, Marketing or IT) and therefore we had no other functional models to analyze; (3) that communication department CCOs, as a relatively small population and as an underrepresented category in most professional PR/Communication associations, were difficult to identify and contact and thus we had to employ snowball techniques in order to reach and engage CCOs; (4) that the 26 interviews with CCOs we conducted and the 278 CCOs in our survey marks this project as one of, if not, the largest international public relations research projects to comprise solely CCOs conducted to date; and (5) that having a geographically disperse team (originally 4 different continental locations; different summer / winter seasons; different university year calendars; different time zones; 18 hour time differentials for the farthest flung members), while a major plus in ensuring the global reach of our research, was a detriment to fostering team logistics. As the project began, each team member already was working to a different calendar and to a full agenda that befits successful scholars and practitioners. Team members had given their personal guarantees that this project would take precedence over other work over the year and a half to two years both parties thought that this project would take. But, given the difficulty in creating a large enough sample, and the corresponding need to move well beyond the promised IABC membership base, that original work schedule went out the window. The need to constantly adjust timelines was also influenced by the fact that, over the course of the project, the team had more
4 than its fair share of job changes, work moves, geographical relocations, serious illnesses, accidents and deaths in team members’ extended families, changes in IABC staff and volunteer personnel as well as an inappropriate involvement of a sponsoring organization to try to cope with and to work around as best it could. Both parties since have learned that a year and a half to two-year schedule is unrealistic for a project of this scope and magnitude. We also learned that there is a tremendous appetite for the results of our research. Three members of our team presented the initial results of our qualitative research to a packed room in Toronto in June of 2010, as part of that year’s IABC International Conference. From the Q & A session and the post presentation discussion, we heard from attendees about their desire to know much more about the factors that influence the organization of communication departments. That all said, it was a pleasure being involved in this groundbreaking research. The six of us trust that this report will add significantly to the body of knowledge and will foster further research into communication function and department structural and organizational factors. Trustees and staff of the IABC Research Foundation and sponsors of this project should be commended for their on-going support and patience. In particular, we would like to express our thanks to Mari Pavia, the then Director of the IABC Research Foundation, for her devotion to this research project and the assistance she gave us initially as we planned our qualitative and quantitative research. We are honoured to submit the detailed research report that follows. Purpose and Scope of the Study The Foundation’s 2009 RFP described the goal of this research project as: “This three-part international study calls for progressively deep investigations of top-performing communication functions within organizations, with the goal of identifying the factors that influence communication department structure and effectiveness.” (Emphasis added) We understood the main goal to have three objectives: (1) the identification of communication department structures; (2) the identification of factors that influenced
5 communication department structure; and (3) the identification of which of these factors that are the most important in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department. As described in the RFP, the research project was to have three parts: qualitative interviews; quantitative survey; and the development of a diagnostic tool. We added a fourth part - an extensive literature review. We conducted an extensive review of the literature, from a variety of disciplines besides public relations and communications. The literature review greatly informed our qualitative and quantitative research efforts, particularly that of questionnaire design. The RFP required 15 interviews to be conducted with top-level communicators or CCOs working for for-profit or for non-profit organizations and based in a mix of locations (i.e. Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, North America). As discussed further into this report, we conducted interviews with 26 CCOs, or almost double the number of interviews. The second requirement of the RFP was to develop and implement a web-based survey of IABC members in the for-profit or private sector and in the non-profit or not-for-profit sector. Given the limited number of CCOs in the IABC membership base, we enlarged the target population to include all possible CCOs in the for-profit and non-profit sectors. We were able to attract 278 CCOs from around the globe to participate in the on-line survey, making this, as noted, if not the then one of the largest global surveys of CCOs. In comparison to other surveys of CCOs in North America and elsewhere around the world that have attracted a lesser number of CCO respondents, we were very pleased to have attracted such a significant sample, particularly an international sample. For both the qualitative and the quantitative research, the requirement was to achieve an international scope, with participation from all continents. As will be shown below, the CCOs we interviewed were located on all continents and the CCOs who participated in the survey came from countries situated around the globe, collectively comprising a broad cross section of for-profit and of non-profit organizations, a representative spread of industrial and business sectors and finally a broad geographical spread of respondent organizations. The third part of the RFP was the design of a “sophisticated, fact-based diagnostic tool.” Based on our findings, we have developed such a tool, what we call a Diagnostic Framework.
6
Chapter 2 Literature Review Introduction The main purpose of this IABC funded project was to examine the factors that influence the structure of communication departments and to explore to what degree organizational and communication department structure impacts on the effectiveness of the communication department’s role within organizations. In considering this central research question, the research team identified a number of sub-themes / related questions that needed to be addressed: (i) how are communication departments structured within organizational settings; (ii) is it possible to identify a universal ‘best practice’ model of communication department structure; and (iii) what are the principal factors (including structure) that influence communication department performance and effectiveness. Before embarking on any empirical research to address these questions, the logical first step was to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing academic and professional literatures relevant to this research topic. Here the aim was to uncover the extent of the current body of knowledge relating to the above themes, which would both inform and help steer the direction of the fieldwork phase of the project. From the outset it became clear that other than the IABC ‘Excellence‘ studies (Grunig 1992; Grunig, Grunig & Dozier 2002), there was little evidence of any substantive body of literature on the issue of communication / public relations department structure and its relationship to the communication / public relations effectiveness. Indeed, there has been relatively little scholarly interest in examining communication department structure per se, other than in terms of how organizational change might affect the way the communication function is organized and managed (e.g. Conrad and Poole 1998). Moreover, communication scholars have shown little interest in examining the range of factors that may influence organizational or functional structures. Thus, it was evident that in conducting the literature review to underpin this study, it would be necessary to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach, drawing on literatures from other fields such as organizational studies, strategic management, human resource management as well as
7 communication and public relations. This multi-disciplinary approach in itself created problems for the research team due to the potentially large volume of references that searches using terms such as ‘organizational or department structure’ could produce. Inevitably, some editorial decisions were necessary in order to reduce the number of references to be examined to a manageable number. The search criteria were repeatedly reviewed as the research team gathered and examined the various streams of literature. Thus, for example, an examination of abstracts identified ‘key words’ such as communication, department, organization and structure allowed a large volume of articles to be discarded where the emphasis was found to be on examining aspects of structure in the context of topics such as human resource management [HRM] policies, resource allocation, financial costs, or marketing strategies, rather than relating in any way to communication. The reviewers recognized that this approach to sifting and selecting relevant literature might lead to some potentially relevant works being overlooked, but it was equally clear that some filtering criteria needed to be used to reduce the volume of literature to be examined to a more realistic level for the time frame available. In practice, constructing this literature review involved a good deal of sifting and discarding of works from a range of disciplinary fields that on closer inspection proved to be of only tangential relevance to the main focus of the research. Despite these difficulties, it was possible through a process of progressive refinement, to assemble a reasonably sound literature base that would inform and underpin the empirical research element of the project. To present the literature in the most coherent way, this literature review has been organized around a number of related themes:
Organization design and structural design / forms / models The relationship between structure and communication The relationship between structure and the communication department The variables that may influence structure International perspective of organizational and communication department structure
Organization Design and Structural Design / Forms / Models In examining organizational and departmental structures and structural design, it is important from the outset to recognize the distinction between ‘organization design’ and organizational ‘structure’ (Stanford, 2007; Galbraith, Downey and Kates, 2002).
8 The former, Stanford argues is “the outcome of shaping and aligning all the components of an enterprise towards the achievement of an agreed mission” (p.3). She goes on to suggest that organizational design should be driven by business strategy and the operating context and involves “holistic thinking about the organization - its systems, structures, people, performance measures, processes, and culture, and the way the whole operates in the environment” (p.4). From this perspective, organizational structure is only one, albeit important, component of organizational design. Indeed, Stanford argues that where reorganization or restructuring focus on only structural aspects, it cannot be considered an organizational (re) design, and is in fact rarely successful. Traditional approaches to organizational design have tended to take a systems theory perspective (Katz and Kahn, 1966). A number of different organizational design models of varying complexity have been advanced, each of which offers an alternative conceptual basis for developing an effective organization design. Some of the most commonly used models are those advanced by consulting firms such as McKinsey, or by individual scholars and organizational design consultants such as Jay Galbraith. The component elements of a number of the more common organizational design models are summarized in Figure 1 below. These models vary in their relative complexity and also have differing strengths and limitations, and hence the appropriateness of any particularly model will depend on circumstances, culture and context (Stanford, 2007: 21). However, one limitation that all of these models display is that they all offer an essentially ‘inward-looking perspective’, viewing organizations as relatively ‘closed systems’, rather than outward looking ‘open systems’ view. For this reason and because of the increasing pace of change within both society and the business world, a number of commentators have questioned the relevance and effectiveness of these models as a basis for future organizational design. To combat these limitations, a number of new or adapted models for organizational design have emerged that attempt to accommodate the need to engage with, and respond more readily to change within the external environment (e.g. McMillan, 2002; Nadler and Tushman, 1999; Ulieru and Unland, 2004). While it is beyond the scope of this particular study to explore organizational design models and processes in any greater depth, nevertheless it is
9 important to recognize that organizational and departmental structures are products of the organizational design process at whatever level it occurs. Thus, any change in such structures may well result from shifts in the approach adopted for organizational design, which in turn may result from either or both, external pressures and / or a shift in the internal management perspective of the organization and its future strategy. Figure 2.1: Summary of Common Systems Models of Organization Design Model/ Authors/ Originators McKinsey 7-S Model Developed by Pascale & Athos (1981) and refined by Peters & Waterman (1982) Galbraith’s Star Model (1995)
Weisbord’s Six Box Model
Nadler & Tushman Congruence Model (1997) Burke – Litwin Model (1992)
Key Elements/ Components Systems Strategy Structure Style Shared Values Staff Skills Strategy Structure People Rewards Processes Leadership [co-ordinates the other 5 elements] Purpose Structure Rewards Helpful Mechanisms Relationships Informal Organization Formal Organization Work People [with inputs & outputs] Mission/Strategy Structure Task Requirement Leadership Management Practice Work Unit Climate Motivation Organizational Culture Individual Needs & Values
Benefits
Limitations
Identifies important organizational elements and recognizes interaction between them
No external environment input, throughput, output No feedback loops
Identifies important organizational elements and interaction between them Includes some diagnostic questions in each element
As with the 7-S Model, lack an emphasis on external inputs and outputs
Easy to follow and allows discussion of what comprises formal and informal
Few named elements may lead to ‘wheelspinning’ or overlooking crucial aspects Very detailed Difficult to quickly grasp and hence perhaps less useful as a diagnostic tool
Includes feedback loops and includes more qualitative aspects
Focus on some elements perhaps at expense of overlooking others
Focusing back on the subject of organizational structure, organizational and management scholars as well as practitioners have shown a strong interest in examining different forms of organizational structure, normally with a view to examining
10 how structure might influence organizational performance (e.g. Chandler, 1966, 1977; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989; Mintzberg, 1979, 1993; Simon, 1962; Williamson, 1975). Indeed, in order to achieve their designated aims, every organization has to make decisions about task and resource allocation, as well as about the coordination and supervision of activities, all of which are manifest in, and constitute the organization’s structure. In short, organizational structure can be broadly defined as the way an organization divides up the tasks and functions to be performed and then coordinates them, or as Child and Pfeffer (1991) have argued, organizational structure defines the firm’s decision-making authority and serves to connect the company’s strategy and the actions and behaviour of the members. In what is now recognized as one of the seminal papers on organizational structure and design, Robert Duncan (1979) argued strongly that structure should be recognized as more than ‘boxes on the chart’, rather it is a “pattern of interactions and coordination that links the technology to tasks and human components of an organization to ensure that the organization accomplishes its purpose” (p.59). Here, Duncan suggested that the organizational structure fulfils two essential objectives: first it facilitates the flow of information within organizations to reduce uncertainty in decision-making; and second, it enables organizations to achieve effective coordination – the integration of activities. Much of the academic literature on organizational structure has inevitably focused on the issue of identifying the most appropriate structural design or form that will enable organizations to perform most effectively. Seminal works by scholars such as Weber (1947) Chandler (1966), Burns (1963), Pfeffer (1978) and more recently Mintzberg (1979, 1983, 1993) and Robbins (1990), have all examined different forms of organizational structure, exploring how structure may affect or be affected by different variables. While much of the literature treats organizational structure as physical entity, McPhee and Poole (2001) argue that “organizational structure is not a physical object or ontological constant. It is a social reality partly constituted - and sometimes transformed - in real-time interaction” (p.504). From this perspective, as will be argued later, the relationship between organizational structure and communication takes on a more complex ‘hue’ in which structure may affect communication processes, and in turn, communication may help to shape organizational structures. However, exploring this
11 relationship is complicated by the fact that there are differing schools of thought about how best to tackle the task of analyzing and prescribing the most effective forms of organizational structure. Traditional and Configurational Approaches Reviewing previous research on organizational structure, McPhee and Poole draw a distinction between the traditional ‘dimensional approach’ to understanding structure and the ‘configuration perspective’. The former involves decomposing structure into a set of variables or dimensions for analysis, whereas the latter aims to capture the interrelationship between different structural dimensions and to define ‘organizational types’ reflected in structural configurations. For public relations scholars, an understanding of alternative structural configurations is valuable as it offers better insights into the significance and flow of communication within organizational structure than can be gained from the dimensional approach. Indeed, McPhee and Poole point out that the dimensional approach is essentially a reductionist approach to understanding organizational structure, treating communication as just one variable amongst many, and relegating it to secondary importance behind more substantive structural features such as formalization or centralization. On the other hand, McPhee and Poole argue, the configuration approach is more holistic and treats communication as an important feature of organizational structure. However, while configurational approaches seek to embrace the complexity of organizations and can highlight the interconnected nature of structure and design choices, this complexity can make configurational theories extremely difficult to construct. Traditional Approaches Traditional approaches to conducting research into organizational structure have focused on examining the core variables that characterize an organization’s structure, often linking structure with patterns of managerial decision-making (e.g. Burns and Stalker, 1961). Here again, it is important not to confuse decisions about structure with broader organization design issues. Although cautioning about the lack of systematic and reliable information on organizational structure, Pugh (1973), in any early seminal
12 study, identifies six primary variables or dimensions of structure that can be distilled from the literature:
Specialization - the degree to which an organization’s activities are divided into specialist roles.
Standardization - the degree to which the organization lays down standard rules and procedures.
Standardization of employee practices - the degree to which an organization has standardized practices for the behaviour and treatment of employees.
Formalization - the degree to which instructions, procedures and practices are formally written down.
Centralization - the degree to which power and control over decisions is held with the top management hierarchy.
Configuration - the ‘shape’ of the organization’s role structure, comprising: (i) the length of the chain of command; (ii) the span of control- how any subordinates managers typical control; and (iii) the percentage of specialized or support staff. Pugh acknowledged that the challenge remained one of developing effective
metrics that can be applied along these dimensions so as to enable them to be used to compare organizations. However, notwithstanding these concerns and measurement issues, Pugh and his fellow researchers were able to construct a series of descriptive profiles of organizations based on these six dimensions. While acknowledging the lack of consensus amongst organizational theorists about how best to define organizational structure, Robbins (1990) pointed to broad agreement about what seemed to be the three core dimensions that shape organizational structure, namely, complexity, formalization and centralization. Although these three dimensions appeared to be widely accepted, Robbins acknowledged that they are by no means universal and went on to suggest that other variables such as specialization, span of control, and professionalization may also be components of how structure is understood. Complexity The first of these three ‘core dimensions’, complexity, refers to the number of different component parts or the extent of differentiation that exists within a particular
13 organization. Clearly, the more complex the organizational structure, the greater the degree of direct and indirect control required, and hence the greater amount of time that management needs to spend dealing with communication and coordination. Differentiation is a key concept underlying complexity, referring to the degree to which work is divided up into ever smaller sets of operational skills / jobs. Differentiation can take place vertically dividing up work by hierarchical levels, and / or horizontally, where work is divided up on a particular level. Here an important consideration is the way in which sets of activities / operations are integrated so as to contribute to organizational goal attainment (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). The challenge of overcoming possible problems of conflict and cooperation, caused by increasing division and specialization, has been highlighted by scholars such as Kanter (1983) and Mintzberg (1989). Formalization Formalization refers to the extent to which organizations rely on formal / written rules and procedures. Greater degrees of formalization are often associated with organizations where there is a higher proportion of more standardized activities. The use of formalization as a means of rational control is widely discussed within the literature, with Beniger (1986), for example, arguing that formalization along with other methods of control was invented to allow increasing complexity and growing geographic spread of corporate operations. Centralization Centralization is normally seen to be concerned with the locus of decisionmaking authority within organizations, and the extent of involvement of organizational members in the decision-making process. Some question exists about the measurement of the degree of centralization / decentralization. Mintzberg (1979) argues that the notion of complete centralization, where top management takes all decisions, is unambiguous - but that where power is ceded to lower levels, various types of decentralization are possible. Indeed, Mintzberg conceptualized five generic parts of the organization where power might be distributed - strategic apex, middle management, operating core, support staff, and technostructure. Mintzberg argued that the location of power within these five generic parts of the organization determines the
14 type of the organizational structures that will tend to prevail. In terms of the decentralization of power and control, this can manifest itself in a number of different ways, which may have consequences not only for how organizational activities are directed and coordinated, but also for any organizational communication processes. Vertical and horizontal decentralization each pose separate challenges to management and to communicators. These communication implications are explored a little further later in this review. One inherent problem with this dimensional approach to structure is that the possible structural options increase exponentially with each new dimension considered. However, such theoretical proliferation runs counter to what organizational researchers have found to be the case in reality, where generally only a relatively small number of different ‘types’ of organizations appear to exist. Thus, organizational researchers have generally sought to distill the differing characteristics of organizations, categorizing them into a number of organizational types or configurations. This configurational approach is explored further below. The Configurational Approach As outlined earlier, the configurational approach to organizational structure defines organizational types that are composed of specific combinations of structural features. Significantly, from this configuration perspective, communication structures and processes, if discussed at all, are treated as an integral part of each configuration. One distinction that is made in the configuration theories is that between typologies and taxonomies. The former begins with theoretical analysis to generate ideal configurations / descriptions of organizational structures, while the latter seeks empirical clusters of data from which to infer types. Both approaches are used to construct configurational theories, with Mintzberg’s work (1979) exemplifying the typological approach, whereas McKelvey’s (1982) work exemplifies the taxonomy approach. For the purposes of this review, it is the typological perspective on which we have focused, as it appears to offer more pragmatic and useful insights into communication department design and management.
15 Henry Mintzberg (1979, 1983, 1989) is amongst the most prominent ‘typological’ theorists and his work is of particular significance for communication scholars because of the prominence of communication processes and ideas found in his theories. Mintzberg identifies a number of coordinating mechanisms, including direct supervision, standardization of work processes, outputs and skills, and mutual adjustment. Later he was to add standardization of norms and politics to this set of coordination mechanisms, albeit that ‘politics‘ was identified as an ‘anti-coordination process.’ Combining these ideas about coordination mechanisms together with his ideas about the five generic parts of an organization, Mintzberg (1979) advances a number of structural configurations associated in each case with domination by one or other of the core parts of the organization, while also reflecting different contextual contingencies. These initial five structural configurations comprised: simple structure; machine bureaucracy; professional bureaucracy; divisional form; and adhocracy. The characteristics of these five configurations are summarized in Figure 2. Figure 2.2: Summary of the Characteristics of Mintzberg’s (1979) Five Organizational Configurations Characteristics Specialization
Simple Structure Low
Formalization
Low
Machine Bureaucracy High Functional High
Professional Bureaucracy High Social
Divisional Structure High Functional
Adhocracy
Low
High within divisions
Low
Centralization
High
High
Low
Limited decentralization
Low
Environment
Simple & dynamic
Simple & stable
Complex & stable
Simple & stable
Complex & dynamic
General Structural Form
Organic
Mechanistic
Mechanistic
Mechanistic
Organic
High Social
Acknowledging the need for structural configurations to be responsive to both internal as well as external environmental conditions, Mintzberg recognized the potential for overlapping configurations as well as change amongst configurations where required. In the latter case, he introduced the idea of a life-cycle model of
16 organizational transformation that identified the most likely changes in configurations in response to external forces that may affect the organization. Despite the logic and interpretive strengths of Mintzberg’s structural models, there has been little empirical testing of his theory. However, it is perhaps notable that Doty, Glick and Huber (1993) found little support for the theory with only about 25% of the organizations they examined fitting in any of Mintzberg’s descriptions. Despite the apparent lack of empirical support, Mintzberg’s configurational theory continues to have a strong interpretive appeal for organizational scholars. Of course, Mintzberg’s set of structural configurations is not the only typology that has been advanced. In fact, one of the criticisms of configuration theory of structure is the lack of a definitive set of typologies. However, since structural configurations are contingent on [changing] contextual circumstances, it is perhaps only logical to conclude that there may be no definitive set of structural configurations that can necessarily be applied in all industry / environmental contexts and over time. Evolving Structural Forms While organizational structures have begun to change more radically in recent years in response to marked changes in technological, economic and market forces, etc. (Fritz, 1996; Scott, 2004; Stanford, 2007), a number of broad structural forms can be identified that have evolved through the history of industrial development. These continue to be relevant in describing the structure of contemporary organizations. Here two key variables appear to act as the principal drivers and determinants of structural design, namely, organizational complexity and organizational size (Mintzberg, 1989). A number of these broad structural forms were identified earlier in our discussion of Mintzberg’s initial five core structural configurations, but it is perhaps worthwhile elaborating a little further on these structural forms, which do generally follow and can be mapped against increasing size and complexity in organizations. Perhaps the earliest and most common form of structure found, particularly amongst small start-up enterprises, is the simple structure, where the owner manager has direct control over a small number of organizational members. It is perhaps worth noting that in most economies around the world, small-scale enterprises make up over
17 90 per cent of all registered businesses. As organizations grow and expand, they will often move towards adopting a more centralized functionally departmentalized or unitary structure [‘U’ forms] associated with either the idea of a ‘machine’ or a ‘professional’ bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1973; 1993). The machine bureaucracy is a characteristic of Weber’s (1947) classic bureaucratic organization – large stable, routinized organizations with centralized and standardized rules and procedures typically found in automated mass production industries. The professional bureaucracy exhibits many of the features of the machine bureaucracy, particularly formulization and standardization, but instead of standardization of work processes, there is standardization of skills for coordination – i.e. complex work performed by highly skilled and knowledgeable people who, by nature, are more difficult to regulate. As a result, professional bureaucracies are characterized by somewhat less formalization and a greater degree of decentralized decision-making in comparison to machine bureaucracies. As organizations increase further in size and complexity, perhaps servicing multiple markets and / or regions, they often turn to the multidivisional [‘M’ form] form of structure to facilitate control over operations across multiple product categories, markets and / or geographic locations. An alternative structural design for large complex organizations is the ‘matrix structure’, which involves vertical and horizontal alignment of many product or market divisions with vertical functional departments. According to Davis and Lawrence (1977), matrix structures normally involve a multiple command system that not only includes multiple command structures, but also related support mechanisms and associated cultures and behavioural patterns. With increasing dynamism and competitiveness in many markets, organizations have sought more flexible responsive structures. This has led to the emergence of more flexible and dynamic market-based network structures (Thorelli, 1986; Snow & Miles, 1992), where organizations may combine some internal core functions with a number of external outsourced and / or subcontracted-out functions, such as, for example, production and logistics as a means of improving efficiency and reducing costs. Nike is an example of such companies, with all of its production and marketing provided by sub-contractors. Further, still more radical structural developments have emerged in recent years in
18 response to the ever more competitive markets, the internationalization of business, and technological advances - all of which are transforming the dynamics in many markets, forcing organizations to look to new more radical and more cost-efficient structures to remain competitive. Here, we have seen the emergence of so-called ‘hollow’ and ‘modular’ organizational structures along with what has been termed the ‘virtual organization’. In the latter case, ‘virtual organizations’ have been created by collaboration between industry members working to create and deliver products and services to customer in far more efficient ways. Further discussion about the evolving nature of different forms of organizational structure is provided in the next section of the review. Figure 3 below summarizes the key characteristics and strengths and weaknesses of these different structural types, as well as outlining the implications for the communication function for each structural type. Figure 2.3: Characteristics of Different Models of Organizational Structure Organizational Form Simple Form Structure
Key Characteristic Direct close control of all functional activity.
Where appropriate Small scale business or non-profit. Single product /service business.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Close control over all elements of the business. Strong personal links with employees.
Lacks scope to control expanding operations. Information overload as complexity increases.
Unitary Form (U-Form) Functional Structure
Centralized control. Functional departments. Coordination & specialization of tasks are centralized in a functional structure. Hierarchical top –down control and communication.
Relatively smaller scale or single product businesses
Allows close control of processes. Increased specialization Economies of scale in monitoring. Critical decisionmaking is centralized in one “peak” person. Shorter lines of communication.
Cannot handle the complexity of multiple activities well. Inefficient when administrative load increases. Potential for ‘political’ infighting between departments. Operational concerns can divert attention from strategic /
Communication Implications Short and simple line of communicationfew structural problems.
Risk of functional compartmentalized mindseteach function sees problems only from one perspective.
19
Multidivisional Form (M-Form) Structure
Semi autonomous operating divisions along product, brand and / or geographic lines. Each division within a divisional structure contains all the necessary resources and functions within it.
Complex multi product and diversified enterprises.
Increased efficiency and organization-al effectiveness from division of labour. Splits corporate & divisional responsibilities. Can exploit economies of scope across divisions. Frees corporate executives to focus on strategic concerns. Facilitates diversification and growth.
Matrix Form Structure
Groups employees and resources by both function and productdual lines of responsibility.
Large complex multinational or multi-market businesses.
Effective use of specialists. Cross – functional teams improve integration. Friendly environment for specialists. Equipment and facilities are more and better.
competitive / entrepreneuri al issues. Management becomes difficult as complexity and size increase along with volume of communicatio n. Need to balance central / corporate control with authority given to divisions. Opportunism and information distortion problems. Myopic focus. Divisions may compete at the expense of cooperating. Transfer pricing battles. Specialists with several bosses. Project managers requiring several specialists or shared specialists. Functional managers providing shared specialists. Sacrifice of territorial incentive.
Hierarchies may have the potential to distort information and communication.
Matrix should open lines of communication between functional specialists but can lead to divided loyalties and coordination problems.
20 Market-based Network Form Structures
Centralized core organization to provide strategic direction. Outsource and / or contract out other functions to external organizations.
Large complex businesses operating in multiple markets where there is potential for significant economies of scale.
Cost efficiency and effectiveness Increased flexibility.
Virtual Organization Forms Structures
May have no physical existence. May simply be virtual entity created by organizational collaboration.
Information-al technology. Any multi stage process business.
Can combine best strengths or collaborating partners. Lower cost of operations. Flexibility.
Requires careful coordination of members of network. Can involve multiple vertical and horizontal management issues. Potential quality control issues. May evolve slowly and require some trial and error. Lack of faceto-face communication.
May suffer from lack of control over network partner communication.
Communication critical to success. Communication between partners needed to avoid conflict.
Reviewing thinking about the development of organizational structure and structural design over the past three decades, Anand and Daft (2007) provided a useful overview of key developments during this period. Here they identified three principal eras of development that they argue reflect significant changes in management thinking about organizational structure. They maintain that over time there has been a change of emphasis from purely vertical organizational structures to horizontal and matrixbased organizational design and more recently to organizations characterized by open boundaries and outsourcing and partnering.
Era One: Self-contained Organizational Design Anand and Daft identified the first era of structural development as the period from early industrial development until the late 1970s, which they labeled as the selfcontained organizational design era. During this era a clear divide existed between suppliers, customers and competitors. Design philosophies during this period emphasized the need to adapt to environmental and other external contingencies, while retaining control of the different parts of the organization through reporting relationships in a largely vertical chain of command. Structure focused on the grouping of people into functional departments, establishing reporting relationships among people and
21 departments as well as systems to ensure coordination and integration of activities both horizontally and vertically. Typical structures during this era include functional, divisional, and matrix designs that relying largely on a vertical hierarchy and chain of command to define departmental grouping and reporting relationships. The authors went on to argue that few organizations can be successful using a pure or functional structure, and will often break down functional silos by using a variety of horizontal linkages to improve communication among departments and divisions.
Era Two: Horizontal Organizational Design Era The second era, which dates from the 1980s, saw an emphasis on the need to reshape the internal boundaries of organizations in order to improve coordination and communication. This emphasis resulted in what became termed the ‘re-engineering’ of structures (Hammer & Champy, 1993) along workflow processes that linked the organization's capabilities to customers and suppliers. In short, organizational structure during this era was characterized by: (i) structure organized around complete workflow processes rather than tasks; (ii) flattened hierarchy and use of teams to manage everything; (iii) process team leaders used to manage internal team processes; (iv) supplier and customer contact drive performance; and (v) external expertise provided from outside the team where required. The chief advantages of this type of horizontal restructuring included much improved communication and faster cycle times to complete work, as well as improved team work. The latter resulted from work teams having a broader perspective and a more flexible and empowered role. Some disadvantages were also identified, particularly the need to be able to identify selfcontained work processes and potential for some degree of turf wars between traditional functional disciplines.
Era Three: Hollow Organizational Design The third identified era commences in the mid-1990s with the opening up of organizational boundaries. This era coincides with the emergence of improved information technology and the rise of emerging economies such as China and India, which have and continue to provide pools of skilled expertise and low-cost
22 manufacturing opportunities. The main trend during this era in terms of structural design is the emergence of what is termed the ‘hollow organization’ [see above], where management recognized the value of outsourcing pieces of work traditionally handled internally to outside partners, particularly in terms of manufacturing. Examples of hollow designs are found in industries such as machine tools, steel, automobiles, and semiconductor chips, which have all seen their production shifted from the West to cheaper developing economies. The core design principles behind these so-called hollow organizations include: (i) determining the non-core processes that are not critical to business performance; (ii) identifying efficient ways to get non-core processes completed efficiently externally; and (iii) creating effective and flexible interfaces with external partners to ensure all externally placed elements of work are completed effectively. A further variation on the hollow organization structure that has emerged since the 1990s is that of the ‘modular organization’ that also uses outsourcing to fulfill a number of non-core organizational functions. What makes a modular organizational form distinctive is that elements of the organization's product are outsourced rather than organizational processes. Subcontractors then provide the assembly of the product components either internally or externally. The key design principles are that the product itself can be broken into manageable components, and the design interface allows the different elements to be put together efficiently and providers to work together effectively. Here the design of the organization focuses on assembling and distributing the elements of the product created both inside and outside the organization. The final variation of organizational design identified by the authors was that of the virtual organization. Virtual organizations are seen to be a response to an increasingly competitive global environment in which success may result from developing complex networks of relationships, competing fiercely with some competitors and collaborating with others. This collaboration or joint venture with competitors usually takes the form of what is known as a "virtual organization" - a company created outside the company specifically to respond to an exceptional market opportunity. These virtual organizations may only exist temporarily, being closed down or sometimes
23 absorbed back into the mainstream part of the organization itself. This type of virtual organization is most common in areas such as high-technology industries. For example, Symbian - a software developer for mobile phones - is a virtual organization that was set up by a consortium of mobile handset manufacturers such as Nokia and Sony Ericsson, Samsung Electronics, Panasonic and Siemens. A summary of the key characteristics of the structural forms associated with each of these eras is provided in Figure 4 below. Figure 2.4: Summary of Structural Forms / Models Associated with Anand and Daft’s (2007) Three Eras of Structural Development Era 1
Dates Early 1970s
Title Self Contained Organizational Design
Characteristics of dominant structural from/models Emphasis on adaptation to environmental contingencies Control maintained through vertical chain of command Structure takes form of functional departments coordinated through Vertical and horizontal systems Structures inc functional, divisional and matrix designs
2
From 1980s
Horizontal Organizational Design
3a
3b
Mid 1990s Variant 1
Hollow Organizational Design
Modular Organizational Design
3c
Variant 2
Virtual Organizational Design
Emphasis on reshaping internal functional boundaries ‘Re-engineering’ communication an control systems along workflow processes rather than tasks to improve communication and efficiency Team –based management and flattened hierarchy Move to outsourcing of non-core activities to improve efficiency and cost saving Flexible interfaces with partner organizations Similar approach to outsourcing to fulfill non-core functions Distinctive components or products are outsources rather than processes Organizational design based on systematic assembly of components created inside and outside the organization Organizational design based on creation of networks of relationships with collaborative or joint venture partners or even competitors Virtual companies / organizations maybe created outside the main organization Virtual organizations may exist only temporarily in response to particularly opportunities or challenges
Anand and Daft concluded their review of organizational structural development by pointing out that the emergence of these different structural design models has expanded the array of choices open to management, and argue that structural design is
24 essentially a ‘choice strategy’ on the part of organizational leaders. However, the move from vertical to horizontal thinking and behaviour can present significant challenges, particularly where such realignment is to be applied in a large organization, which may involve a major change in both people and culture. Thus, as Anand and Daft acknowledged, thinking about organizational structure has evolved markedly over the past three or more decades, reflecting changes in both organizational priorities, and, as will be examined later, also as a response to changes in the operating environment. Whether such change in thinking amongst organizational scholars and practitioners is reflected within communication / public relations circles and within the communication literature is explored in the following sections of this review.
The Relationship Between Structure and Communication In the previous sections of this literature review, we examined the literature on organizational structure, from a traditional dimensional perspective and from an organizational configuration perspective. Given the aims of this research project, we turn now to examine the relationship between organizational structure and communication, both in terms of what the literature has to say about the way in which organizational structure may affect the process and role of the communication / public relations in organizations, and equally, of what extent can or does communication contribute to the shaping of organizational structure. Turning first to the traditional dimensional approach, here organizational structure has typically been examined by studying component properties such as centralization, differentiation and formalization - as elements of a bureaucratic / mechanistic style of organizing as opposed to a more ‘organismic style’ (Burns and Stalker, 1961). From a communication perspective, mechanistic structures typically imply closer control over the behaviour of employees and less flexibility than do organic structures. These consequences are due partly from the restricting and channeling of internal communication. McPhee (1985) argued that formal structures could serve as a substitute for communication in large organizations by providing the coordination that would otherwise be achieved through communicating.
25 Examining the areas of horizontal and vertical differentiation in organizational structure, some scholars have argued that increasing differentiation - dividing work into ever smaller sets of skills / roles - may create increasing communication challenges particularly with integration (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). For example, Schrader, Lincoln, and Hoffman (1989) found that differentiation led to more clustering and less density and reciprocity in inter-organizational networks, resulting in greater fragmentation and isolation for some groups / individuals. In contrast, some studies have found evidence of less negative views of differentiation. For example, Miller, Droje, and Toulouse (1988) found that differentiation of special control and liaison units increases the rationality and interaction about strategic decisions. A general presumption exists amongst scholars that with increased organizational size there is a greater tendency for a more mechanistic organizational structure to develop in order to cope with the great coordination burden that can often overwhelm informal organizing processes. Jablin (1987) examined whether organizational size negatively affected organizational communication. This and other research has produced a rather mixed picture about the relationship between size and organizational communication, with some scholars such as Connor (1992) finding that increasing size leads to greater and broader participation in decision-making, whereas Smeltzer and Fann (1989) found that size imposed some restrictions on the breadth of decision-making involvement. Smeltzer and Fann also found that in large organizations, company managers were more concerned with internal communication with their subordinates and others in the hierarchy, rather than with external communication or organizational politics. Such findings may, of course, partly reflect the particular managers’ responsibilities and level with the organizational hierarchy, or might also reflect the prevailing culture and managerial worldview of priorities. Studies of how the vertical hierarchy in organizations affects communication have highlighted how communication behaviour varies by hierarchical level. For example, the frequency of oral communication episodes has been found to increase with each hierarchical level within organizations (Macleod, Scriven and Wayne, 1992). Other studies in this area have looked at the way hierarchical levels affect the style of communication with, as might be expected, greater levels of assertiveness found at
26 higher levels within the organization's management hierarchy. Examining structure in terms of the degree of formalization - the extent to which rules and procedures are explicitly stated - a number of scholars have suggested that the use of formal rules and controls produces a more rational decision-making process in all areas including communication (Miller, 1987). Moreover, Gilsdorf (1992) has pointed to the benefits of formalization in terms of corporate policies governing communication of sensitive information, crisis communication, or the communication of corporate values. Of all the dimensions of structure, it is the question of how ‘centralization’ of organizational structures may affect communication that has attracted the greatest interest from a communication perspective. Examining the effects of centralization and de-centralization, Jablin (1987) found that decentralization is accompanied by increased communication on many dimensions, not the least being the raw amount of communication taking place. Miller (1987) found the decentralization of strategic decision-making leads to more interaction between decision-makers and others, although no greater rationality of decisions. A number of studies have focused on the impact of greater decentralization and linked this with the greater organizational effectiveness. Macey, Peterson and Norton (1989), for example, found where structures and programs led to increased influence by group members; it resulted in better group cohesion, organizational involvement and clarity in decision-making. Krone (1992, 1994) in a series of studies examining decentralization and control of work, found participation led to more open communication. Conrad and Poole (1998) summarized the literature on centralization and communication, pointing to two important issues: first that decentralization can be used in many different ways; and second, it can be applied to both horizontal and vertical communication processes. Horizontal decentralization requires communication across professional boundaries, which requires specific types of communication techniques such as the use of integrating managers and of task forces. Vertical decentralization is concerned with the need to maintain communication through multiple layers, and combat the possible problems of distortion and control that may be lost in the vertical communication processes. Conrad and Poole also pointed to the need to distinguish between decentralization as a systemic organizational property and the way organizational members perceive such properties.
27 Again as was suggested earlier, the configurational perspective of organizational structure is generally seen to offer clearer links between theories of communication and structure and indeed, for many scholars, communication is treated as an integral part of most configuration concepts, permeating the organization as a whole (McPhee & Poole, 2001). However, as McPhee and Poole have pointed out, configurational approaches have not been widely used in organizational communication research because of a tendency to focus on dyadic and group communication rather than analyzing communication from and within the organization as a whole. As was highlighted earlier, Mintzberg’s (1979, 1983, 1989) work is amongst the most widely cited in this field of organizational structural theory, and ‘communication’ figures very prominently in Mintzberg’s theorizing about the configuration of organizational structures. Indeed, communication forms a core element of two of the coordinating mechanisms Mintzberg posited - namely ‘mutual adjustment’ and ‘direct supervision’ and plays an implicit part in most others. However, while configurational theories appear to offer the most promising platform from which to explore the role and significance of communication in organizational management, some caution may be needed as configurational theories have come under some criticism. As pointed out earlier, Doty et al (1993) found little empirical support for the majority of Mintzberg’s structural types. Furthermore, although configurational scholars have tended to treat the various structural typologies advanced as universal concepts, commentators such as Meyer (1995) have pointed to the potential limitations of what might be argued is the culturally bound basis for many of the configurations advanced. Meyer, for example, points out how much better the concept of ‘bureaucracy’ works in Germany than in America. Here the question may be whether the role of communication within different structural configurations can remain consistent across cultural boundaries and in different cultural settings. Marked changes in recent years in the global economic, social and technological environments and in information technology in particular have had a major impact on the environment in which many organizations now operate. Indeed, many of the more advanced economies have been evolving towards what has been termed ‘knowledge societies’ (Drucker, 1994) in which information is an increasingly important currency.
28 These external changes have all created new challenges and imperatives for organizations in terms of a greater emphasis on exploiting the knowledge and skills of organizational members. These new challenges have caused an increasing number of organizations to re-examine how they are organized and structured. As noted earlier (Anand and Daft, 2007), responding to these forces for change has seen the emergence of new organizational forms such as more flexible market network-based organizations as well as ‘hollow’, ‘modular’ and ‘virtual’ organizations, all of which have significant implications for the role of communication. Arguably, these new organizational forms place an even greater emphasis on the role of communication, particularly given the organizing principle for many of these new forms of organization is no longer the chain of command but the network, which may in some cases, may extend to include individuals or organizations based around the world. Given the possibility of the loci of power changing at different times and in different contexts within some networks, the need for, and emphasis on, communication within the network is all the more critical. Indeed, McPhee and Poole (2001) emphasized that in these new and often looser configurations, structure and communication are more obviously and tightly interrelated. In traditional theories of structure, communication is normally considered in terms of information transmission. In newer forms of organizational structure such as networks and virtual organizations, communication plays other important roles such as the fostering of trust and the creation and retention of knowledge. For example, Handy (1989) emphasized that where trust is recognized as underpinning the structure in new configurational forms, then structure may play a critical role in promoting or hindering the interactions that facilitate the building of trust. In terms of knowledge management, structures are needed to enable important elements of knowledge to be identified, linked together and retained. From this perspective, it is apparent that organizational cognition and learning involve more than just information processing. The importance of information technology in many new organizational forms has made it easier to identify the importance of the communication - structure relationship. Information technology also makes communication a commodity that can be stored, operated on and regulated and transferred. Finally, Conrad and Poole (1998)
29 highlighted the importance of ‘integration’ in these new more fluid organizational forms. They argue that the potential fluidity of change in structural configurations, as organizations and networks form and reform, makes it essential that there are strong integrating mechanisms of which communication is a vital ingredient. Once again as this review suggests, there is little real consensus or coherent theoretical developments around the ‘communication - structure’ relationship. Rather an examination of the links between communication and organizational structure has tended to be rather piecemeal and conducted from either a traditional dimensional or a configurational perspective. In the former case, the emphasis has been on examining how the various structural dimensions may affect the pattern and flow of communication and hence its effectiveness. In the latter case, communication does seem to assume a more prominent place in configurational theories - most notably perhaps in terms of its coordinating role within what may sometimes be quite loosely linked organizational structures (Mintzberg, 1989).
A Critical Management Studies Perspective From the discussion thus far it can be seen that a considerable amount of time and effort has been spent examining the role and impact of structure in organizational life in relation exchanges, interfaces and relationships. As indicated earlier, much of this debate has concentrated on matters of ‘form’ and the shape of organizational structure that might be seen as desirable in any given set of circumstances. By way of example, this might include questions about how a matrix structure or a divisional order might best suit the needs of the organization. It was equally noted that such debates have figured less prominently within the communication / public relations literature and, where such questions about functional ‘structure’ have emerged, the discussion has been aimed largely at questions of which structure might constitute the most appropriate or effective form or shape for the communication function or department and the consequent effects and impacts of introducing such forms. So far we have concentrated on examining how far scholars and practitioners have recognized and drawn upon more traditional views and theories about organizational structure when planning, managing or theorizing about organizational
30 communication processes. Before concluding a review of the relevant management literature, it may be useful to consider the relevance and importance of a more recent ‘school‘ of thinking about organizations and organizational structure, which is generally termed critical approaches to management, or Critical Management Studies (CMS). The CMS school embraces a useful range of alternative perspectives on the issue of structure and communication (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992, 1996; Fournier and Grey, 2000; Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis, 2008; Linstead, Fulop and Lilley, 2009; Stokes, 2011). CMS approaches can be summarized as embracing the following characteristics:
CMS approaches are based on postmodernist and poststructuralist-type thinking which have become an important influence on mainstream thinking and shaping in relation to organizations and management;
CMS sees structure as something that is constantly in transition even if we have the impression that it may seem fixed for certain periods. The constant taste and fashion for change and restructuring in modern organizations is representative and an indication of these effects and we can witness these process in action in relation to, for example, virtual and network-type structural forms;
CMS does not necessarily see structure as just a physical form, structure – or the boundaries, separations and differences created by structure – can also be made by elements like symbols, power, cultures and discourses;
CMS approaches suggest that, in an ever-changing and fast-paced local and global environments, structure is more likely to have characteristics of temporary and shifting networks, building and reforming alliances and link-ups rather than being of any fixed form. The internet and social media web-based communication applications point at the transient nature of these new and emerging forms of structure and connections;
CMS sees managers and staff as agents who, not only live within structures that they create, but also recreate and regenerate and renegotiate structures from the moment they come into being – this is often linked to effects and consequences of power and discourse. Portfolio careers and radical changes in job role in the contemporary workplace are illustrative symptoms of these effects;
CMS tends not to see structures as creating simple cause-and-effect actions – in the case of, for example, direction and execution of task; and
From a CMS perspective, actions and events are more likely to be non-linear in nature and even have occasional chaotic tendencies in them. In other words, there will be many actions and factors playing a role in causing ‘events’ and structures.
31 This goes some way to helping to explain why seemingly ‘straightforward plans and directions’ sometimes ‘go wrong’ or not to the envisaged plan –e.g. communication from one point does not always end up with the originally intended receiver getting the message at the intended time or in the intended form. This experience is also illustrated through power, politics and social construction of competing realities harking back to McPhee and Poole’s (2001) work. In other words, not everyone sees the world or a particular issue in the same way. Sometimes this will be a consequence of their upbringing and adult experiences in the department and social groups they frequent; sometimes it will be for power and political ambition – not uncommon in organizational life and structures. It may of course even be a mixture of the two facets of social construction and political action. Having outlined some of the key characteristics of CMS in relation to structural issues, it will also be useful to offer some further insights into the origins and development of the CMS school of thought, as this will afford a broader understanding to some of the above-noted characteristics in relation to organizational structure. The disciplinary domain and critique of CMS are founded on thinking that draws on a range of sources dating back to the Frankfurt School and the emergence of Critical Theory (following, for example, Marcuse (1989-1979), Horkheimer (1895-1973) and Habermas (1929 -). Critical Theory identifies the strong presence of ‘alienation effects’ in society in general and in the structures within them and has sought to advance ways in which knowledge could be employed in order to promote forms of empowerment and emancipation across the span of human activity. The implication for communication professionals is that they must constantly guard against the potential alienation of audiences as a result of wider organizational actions and/ or the impact of communication activities, however unwittingly, carries out. When communication considerations are linked to structure, it can be seen how some of the effects that different structures produce may well have the consequence of alienating people. The CMS school has taken this work forward, introducing new ideas and new ways of thinking to the organization and management domains from a range of related schools of thought, such as, postmodernism, post-structuralism, critical-realism and deconstructionism - some of which have been discussed briefly earlier. Drawing on aspects of these broadly related schools of thought, critical perspectives of organization and management theory permit the discussion to cast valuable light on issues relating
32 to structure and communication. Here, for example, the CMS perspective highlights questions about the boundaries around structures, movement through and around structures, and discourses in relation to and through structures. Moreover, critical approaches might enable us to ask questions about the very nature of structure itself, and the degree to which it is a social construction (that is to say created by human action, decision, perception and agency) rather than a solid artifact (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Watson and Harris, 1999; McPhee and Poole, 2001). From this perspective, ultimately, all organizational structures are recognized as a human creation and that, as such, they are not a ‘given’ nor are they permanent or unchangeable. In this way, therefore, we should ‘expect’ things and structures to change. All such questions are, arguably, extremely relevant because all managers take actions based on information they possess or are supplied with and, crucially, their assumptions about the world in which they operate and live. Therefore, if it becomes possible to challenge, rethink and reform the essential assumptions and beliefs underpinning an organization or function’s current operating practices (the prevailing ‘worldview’), then this, in turn, may help managers devise new liberating and innovative ways of conducting business. Given the accelerated pace of change in recent years, it is perhaps hardly surprising to find that professionals across a whole range of organizational functions are coming under pressure to rethink their ideas, practices and the functional structures through which they work. Thus, it follows that if we are ready to recognize that the world around us is changing in an ever faster and radical, even on occasion unpredictable and chaotic, manner, then why should we anticipate that a fixed organizational structure exists, even for a limited time? Given this premise, it follows that it may even be pointless or illogical to quest after some form of ideal structure in a given notionally fixed context. Based on this rationale, it would perhaps be more useful to see the organizational structure not as fixed – even for a temporary moment this might only be illusory – but as in constant evolution, emergence and transformation – even on occasion seemingly chaotic (Watson and Harris, 1999; Stacey, 2012). To help provide further clarity about how a CMS perspective may further enrich and illuminate the discussion of structure and communication, it may also be useful to examine briefly more closely the notion of ‘boundaries’ associated with ‘discourse’ and
33 ‘culture’ and structure and communication. The issue of boundaries is at the very centre of any question and discussion about structure. Boundaries delineate and identify departments, divisions, reporting lines, hierarchies and so on and so forth. In an everyday sense, the term ‘boundary’ can be understood to mean ‘a limit or demarcation of the extent of a domain’. However, equally, a boundary structure can also be seen to exercise power in terms of delineating the inclusivity and exclusivity of a particular structure. When we demarcate a boundary or structure, de facto, we are indicating what is embraced within it. However, equally importantly, when structuring and shaping an organization or entity we are also deciding what lies outside or is excluded. Vitally, this can have the effect of creating the ‘other’ and ‘othering’. In creating this idea of the ‘other’, we create another identity for those who are not ‘part of us’- who are external to the organization. This effect is, for example, typically evidenced in the playing out of departmental identities, characters and politics. As communication professionals discuss issues of structure and communication, whether of the organization as a whole or of the communication function, they are inevitably drawn into distinguishing between different groups or sub groups, which may have consequences in terms of how we understand the dynamics of cultures, teams and individuals. In short, ‘othering’, by the creation of boundaries, can lead to the emergence of varying cultures and identities. Here, it should also be recognized that boundaries can be created not only in a physical manner, but also linguistically and discursively (the way we talk, the language and jargon employed) and also in terms of the spatial lay out of the structures (Fleming and Spicer, 2004; Sturdy, Clark, Fincham and Handley, 2009). In the case of communication departments and operations, such considerations raise a number of interesting issues:
Firstly, there is the question of why there should be any concern about functional structure in relation to communication departments/ functions in the first instance;
Secondly, one might argue that communication professionals should develop a perspective that moves beyond the traditional mechanistic and normative discussions on structure. The possibility of viewing structure as a ‘human creation’, and the consequences of this, arguably liberates communication professionals to demonstrate flexibility within corporate structures and this could, in turn, lead to innovative and novel opportunities for internal and external competitive advantages; and
34
Thirdly, to some extent, a discussion of these issues links back to earlier discussions on notions of contingency and virtual organizations (Pugh, 1973; Cornelissen and Harris, 2004). Contingency Theory’s suggestion that structural issues would vary with consideration of context, situation, temporal and macroenvironmental factors also remains a useful contribution and not altogether unrelated point to CMS. What this brief summary of the core tenets of the CMS perspective reveals is that
CMS can be particularly valuable in providing a further lens through which to make sense of the concepts of structure in the organizational and communication department context; highlighting the multifarious complexity that takes place in and around every organization and reminding us that, while in the busy and pressurized workplace, it is convenient to seek simple cause and effect answers in relation to issues such as structure. The truth and lived experience of the reality often show that simple answers are not always helpful. The CMS perspective is valuable in providing ideas and approaches that may assist in accounting for this complexity and suggesting the ways in which it might be addressed. Extending this latter point, in the communication field it is useful to also highlight the role of ‘predominant character’ of firms in different areas of the industry. In the case of communication firms, (agencies and consultancies), many of these will typically tend to be small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In some instances, they may even be micro-businesses (typically under five employees). Of course, there are also a number of very large operations that may employ several hundred people in their main communication headquarters office, but this would seem to be more the exception than the rule. The typical small scale of many agencies may contrast with the numbers employed in corporate communication departments found particularly in some of the larger multinational corporations. However, as is widely seen in the current recession, many corporations have also downsized in recent years and anecdotal evidence at least suggests that communication departments have not been immune to this pruning of numbers, with many departments being markedly reduced in size and in some cases closed and their function outsourced. Indeed, even where a relatively large communication function exists, it may be the case that it is broken down into a number
35 of sub-functions / department spread across the organization’s ‘estate’ rather than kept as an integral whole. Given the diversity that appears to characterize the communication field, it seems unlikely that it would be possible to identify a single ideal model of functional structure that could be applied in all cases. In the case of the micro-business or SMEs, structure is hardly likely to be an issue of major concern at all given that the size of such organizations normally means that all staff members tend to assist across the range of tasks to be accomplished. Contingently, therefore, different communication departments and entities are likely to have very divergent experiences of structure. Moreover, the notion of boundaries, discourse and ‘othering’ are equally likely to take place in differing manners across the range of structural forms and organizational sizes. It follows that the consideration of ‘structure’ in the context of the communication function is only likely to become meaningful when considering larger entities, although the ‘threshold’ size at which structural questions become relevant is unclear. Moreover, the boundary, and discursive effects are likely to be filtered and affected in varying ways by differing forms of structure. These are most likely to be driven by issues of power, control and a need for consistency in relation to these factors. Introducing this CMS perspective into the discussion of what role structure plays in communication departments, arguably offers a useful alternative lens on the subject to that provided by conventional organizational and management theories. CMS approaches provoke and stimulate practitioners to ‘think outside the box’ in relation to structures, relationships and the cultures that operate around them. As such, CMS encourages practitioners to think of structure and everything else in organizational life as symbiotic in nature, i.e. structures produce effects and, reciprocally, effects reproduce and transform structures and so on and so forth. In this way, CMS can be a useful and invaluable tool to leverage greater value and effectiveness from organizations. Table 5.1 below illustrates the gradually evolving nature of different perspectives on organizational structure in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century period. It acknowledges the presence, dominance and contribution of the many long-standing traditional and conventional models of organizational structure, but also introduces a
36 range of ideas from the critical-emergent strands of organizational thinking. Boldly, it attempts to present a potential fusion of the two main schools of thought that may take the best features from both. Table 2.5 Conventional, Critical-Emergent and Hybrid Perspectives of Organizational Structure CONVENTIONAL/ TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE Organizational form and structure are seen as solid, fixed and unchanging at a given period of time.
CRITICALEMERGENT PERSPECTIVE Nothing is fixed and although things might provide the impression of being so, in fact, everything is in constant emergence and transition.
Geographical /Spatial Spread
Space and time over space (i.e. travel) is seen in onedimensional terms.
Multiple perceptions of and dimensions of space and time are constructed by differing groups of people – the perception of time, urgency, and distance is a matter of what is seen as ‘normal’ or ‘usual’ for the individual.
Predominant Management World View
Culture and structure are fluid and managers flow with, and shape, them as they move in varying directions of the trajectories that happen in environments in which they operate.
Culture
Culture and structure are viewed as something ‘solid’ and ‘hard’ – therefore changing one thing causes an effect on another in a direct and measurable manner. Culture within structure is seen as something ontologically solid that can be touched and manipulated by managers. There is a recognition that ‘informal’ cultural aspects exist.
Size
Micro – direct
Size seen only as a
Form/ Structure
Culture within structure is seen as emergent, organic, ‘boundary-less’ and ever changing. It is difficult to define, has a life of its own and is therefore difficult to manage.
CONVENTIONAL-CRITICAL HYBRID PERSPECTIVE The fixed appearance of things provides temporary solid platforms from which to operate. However, communication professionals recognize the discursive processes that are shaping the world and the structures that are formed and dissolved within it. The physicality of international locations is seen as real but there is a clear recognition that sense making might occur in differing ways in those locations – communication departments. Might seek consistency and consequent control but they are also ably positioned more than most other functional areas to interpret and appreciate differing discourses and sense-making linked to space and time – i.e. geographic location. Actions are driven in myriad micromoments of sense-making and decision points. Culture and structure are shaped and interpreted as a consequence of repeated interaction in relation to these. Culture within structure is seen as two entities that are essentially both organic. This means the two are shifting and changing constantly. Communication departments may be bound by wider organizational structures in many cases but the power over discourse provides communications departments with great power to be able to shape both structure and culture. It appears there are highly
37
Power Control/ Reporting Structure
communication – small village metaphor. SME – Direct to semi-direct influence and communication. Large MNC – variably direct and indirect communication.
notional boundary and a construct of the way in which people within and without the organization perceive the entity. Thus, this leaves scope for communication s to contribute to constructions.
polarized structural segments in operation. At one end of the continuum MNC large corporations with complex sense making and power shaping structure. The question concerns whether communication department voices are heard. At the other extreme, there are small enterprises with ‘village like’ worldviews and communication channels.
Power is seen as top-down in general. Generally flows downwards through structure. Ideas are attempted to be push upwards.
Power appears to be linked to job-title and authority but it also flows between ranges of individuals as influence and discourse shape the actions and structures of the organization.
Power and control are seen as organic and negotiated aspects of structure. Exercising judgment regarding points where this may be exerted to effect are crucial and communications professionals are well positioned to take such opportunities.
Each perspective is now described in turn. Conventional / Traditional Perspective The post-WWII period leading up to the mid to latter part of the twentieth century was primarily characterized by what can be termed traditional and normative structures. Typically these display features that reflect the national and international environments in which they predominantly operate. This means that they tend to be hierarchical and use structures that are experienced as being fixed and unchanging over substantial periods of time. Equally, communication and action in such structures tends to be topdown and bureaucratic. Size of the organization is seen as a readily identifiable and defining characteristic. Within a conventional / traditional perspective on organizational structure, the size of the organization infers a particular fixed and solid view of structures and cultures within the organization. The influence of the conventional/traditional mindset is still potent and prevalent in relation to organizational design. However, it might be argued that this is something of a vestige of an earlier
38 period of organizations and markets. While conventional views of organizational structure may endure, the external global and globalized environments in which they operate have changed substantially. It is for this reason that it is important to understand and appreciate these emergent contexts and critical approaches are a useful device with which to begin to approach this issue. Critical / Emergent Perspective The late twentieth century has seen the emergence of a new paradigm for organizational structure. This is characterized by what might be term critical approaches. In these contexts organizations clearly see themselves as located and operating in global settings. The long-standing hierarchical structures of the early and mid-twentieth century have tended to give way for more flexible and adaptable structures that are ready and able to transform in the face of emergent challenges and fast-changing global environments. In these contexts, organizations are likely to have colleagues and collaborators spread out across geographically large and diverse areas. This means that discussion and sense making is likely to take place over geographically extensive zones. It is highly likely that different and at times contrasting perceptions and understandings will exist in different settings and a great challenge for managers and communication professionals is the development of the capacity to be able to reconcile such differences. In critical organizational settings, management styles tend to be mindful of the evolving culture of the organization and a need to understand the discourses and dynamics of actors within these contexts. In other words, understandings and action need to be negotiated between colleagues. The formerly dominant top-down approach to direction and control within the traditional / conventional forms of organization has become obsolete and is not seen as a legitimate or valuable way of communicating and acting within the organization. While size is still a significant factor, it is less pre-determining in relation to the internal characteristics of the organization. In this way, both large and medium sized organizations, for example, may exhibit comparable attitudes to changing internal structures in a highly flexible and adaptable manner. This tends to mean that while a
39 particular structure may be in place, for a particular purpose, at a particular time, all structures are prone to change through external pressures and internal negotiation. The role of communication professionals in such transitions is likely to be centrally important, within the discussions, the dynamics and interactions that may take place within different settings. Power and management style must be both politically aware and mindful of the need to carry colleagues with projects and actions, rather than relying on direct authority and instruction. This means that structures become effectively less bound by clear and distinct traditional and conventional boundaries of structure. Yes indeed, structure still exists, and indeed should exist, in relation to the organization but it becomes increasingly important to be able to view structure as something that ‘serves rather than as needing to be served’. In this way, structure very much is viewed as a flexible and changeable device that is a means that serves an end rather than being an end in itself. Within this perspective, what becomes more important are ideas of shifting power: the negotiation of meanings, understandings, identity and purpose; and, the expectation that communication will take place in a multi-dimensional way. This will not, therefore, be a top-down communication but communication in a range of spaces and contexts. The emergence of this critical organizational paradigm, set against a traditional conventional view, means that it is important to identify and envisage a response. Conventional – Critical Hybrid Perspective If we view organizations through this lens, then we see structure as something of a shifting platform or backdrop against which to make sense of communication and guiding plans and actions. The predominant managerial behaviour in these contexts is one that seeks to achieve negotiated outcomes and shared meanings. This is not to say that there is not a role for managerial and executive decision and action, however, rather than having an autocratic edge (as it may be prone to appearing within traditional / conventional contexts and structures), it will appear as consensus and identity building. Harmony and team functionality, cohesion and identity will be important objectives within such structures and settings. Organizational departments and areas feel akin to villages in a wider global city. The Internet and Intranets are key
40 mechanisms that facilitate the exchanges within these structures. Communication specialists are well placed to be able to interact and capitalize on the nature of these hybrid structures. Overall, the structures feel as if they have permanency in the periods in which they exist and serve: however, over relatively short periods of time, they evolve and are transformed as the local and global environments and contexts change. So far this review has focused on how the concept of structure has been understood and applied in the organizational context and to a lesser extent, what the interaction might be between the concepts of structure and communication in that organizational context. Here by necessity, we have focused on a broad cross-section of organizational and management literature, exploring both long-established traditional views and the more recent CMS perspectives of the subject. The remaining sections of this review of literature will turn the focus on how the topic of structure has been treated in the communication / public relations literatures as well as exploring the influences on the choice and development of structure in the communication / public relations context.
Structure and the Communication Department If we consider the treatment of the concept of structure found in much of the literature examined so far, it is clear that the principal focus found within so much of literature has been on examining structure at the organizational level, rather than at the specific departmental level. Where communication departmental structure has been considered at all, it tends to be largely set in the context of how communication departments can or should adapt, to fit in with the wider organizational structure and how communication strategies can be best aligned with those of the organization as a whole. In this sense, the broad consensus view is that there is a largely hierarchical, linear relationship between organizational and communication departmental structures. One area where structure is discussed at the departmental level is in terms of what has been termed specialization or ‘departmentalization’ - the way in which organizations seek to divide and organize labour into specialist groups. Departmentalization is the way in which organizations attempt to coordinate activities that have been horizontally differentiated (Robbins, 1990). Departments can be created on the basis of simple number, function, product/service, geography, client or process.
41 For example, in most large organizations multiple criteria may be used for departmental segmentation, such as first by function [finance, manufacturing, sales, HRM], then by segmenting each function - such as sales perhaps being segmented by geographic region or manufacturing segmented by product category. Multiple criteria breed multiple hybrid segmentations. Of course, in small organizations, a simple structure normally suffices as an informal but effective method by which people can be grouped and organized. In large organizations, more elaborate structures are needed to divide specialized talent. Such considerations of how organizations may seek to exercise power and control over departments speaks very clearly to a CMS perspective. It highlights that different organizations and different management teams may adopt very different views and criteria on how departments should be divided, organized and managed. Here, it is important that we not assume a ‘top-down’ view of power and control as being the only or predominant pattern operating in a given organization. By its very essence, communication implies that power can be acquired and deployed by many different people and areas in an organization. It is important, therefore, when considering particular organizational forms, to reflect on where hubs or points of power might emerge. Consequently, if such emergence of power effects in a proposed structure is thought to be an issue, then it is important to program in structural adjustments that will help modify and regulate these effects. Moreover, crucially, it also highlights the challenge of trying to identify an industry-wide standard or structural pattern, because cultures at the group and organizational level may well play a highly significant role. Turning to examine how the issue of structure, and particularly departmental structure, has been treated within the public relations literature, it is clear that other than the exception of the work undertaken as part of the IABC sponsored ‘Excellence study’ (Grunig 1992; Grunig, Grunig and Dozier, 2002), the topic has received very little attention within the mainstream communication / public relations literature. Where the question of structure has surfaced within the literature, the focus has tended to be on examining how it may determine and reflect the vertical reporting relationships that connect public relations to the senior management, and affect the position of the public relations function within the organizational hierarchy. The concern being to try to
42 ensure that the public relations / communication department has its voice heard at the most senior levels, and that its potential contribution to policy formation is recognized. Of course, the emphasis here is more on the question of power and influence on the part of the public relations team than on the structuring of the department per se. One of the first studies to look seriously at the relationship between structure and public relations was that of James Grunig (1976) who suggested that the role and behaviour of public relations practitioners would be strongly influenced by organizational structure. Indeed, the importance of structure as a controlling influence, determining the distribution and exercise of power within organizations is a theme that permeates the management, organizational theory and public relations literatures (e.g. Fritz, 1996). The question concerning the influence of structure on the operation of the public relations / communication function was picked up and examined further by Grunig and Hunt (1984), who first explored the relationship between environment conditions and organizational structure before going on to explore how the various dimensions of vertical and horizontal structures might affect the way the public relations function operates. They attempted to identify the appropriateness of centralized and decentralized structures when linked to the one-way and two-way models of public relations. Referring to the horizontal departmental structure, Grunig and Hunt outline six possible configurations of the horizontal structural dimensions for organizing public relations tasks, roles and coordinating mechanisms for public relations programs. These horizontal structural dimensions for organizing the communication department structure included organizing by:
Specific publics or stakeholder groups;
Departmental management processes;
Geographical region;
Communication technique or skill sets;
Organizational subsystem; and
Client group need (account executive systems).
43 Schneider (aka Larissa Grunig) (1985) sought to extend this work further using Hull-Hage’s (1982) four-fold typology of organizations based around the dimensions of ‘size or scale’ and ‘complexity’. However, Schneider's research concluded that HullHage typologies provided only a minimal explanation of the effect of vertical structures on the operation of public relations / communication departments. Rather, Schneider concluded that a better explanation of the structure of communication departments was provided by reference to power-control theory, which highlights the overriding importance of the top management or the dominant coalition’s influence in determining departmental structure. In recognizing the importance of senior management decisionmaking in determining structure and the role of functional departments including communication, Schneider was effectively concurring with Child’s (1972) arguments advanced nearly a decade earlier. Moreover, the power-control perspective of structural decision-making aligns very much with CMS school of thought in terms of understanding how and why particular departmental structures may come about (please refer back to the discussion above on CMS approaches for a more detailed presentation of this). A caveat worth noting here is that in her research Schneider focused only on how one large, central communication department was and might be structured. Such a department is, of course, only one type of public relations / communication department. This emphasis on the use of the Hull-Hage (1982) typologies, in particular, recurs and underpins much of the theorizing within the Excellence study about both employee communication and, in terms of propositions regarding the impact of organizational structure, on the public relations / communication function’s role and effectiveness within organizations. Thus, for example, James Grunig (1992) argues strongly that participation in decision-making [in the dominant coalition] should be treated as a structural variable rather than a communication variable per se. One of the criticisms of this stream of work has been its over-reliance on the traditional organizational theories of structure advanced by scholars such as Burns and Stalker (1961) and Hage (1980), as the basis for conceptualizing organizational structures. Thus, for example, within the public relations literature, there is little explicit recognition or attempt to draw more extensively on the work of the configurational theory or to draw on some of the more recent research into how organizations may seek to ‘re-engineer’ their organizational
44 structures (Hammer and Champy, 1993), or to consider the implications for communication of the advent of ‘network type’ or ‘virtual’ organizational structures. As suggested earlier, while configurational approaches embrace much of the antireductionist, contingent and constructionist thinking around structural approaches, it does not appear to play an overt role in configuration decisions. Here is perhaps an opportunity for communication professionals to consider some of the issues involving, for example, discourse, boundaries, ‘othering’ and power in order to better inform and complement choices made that follow the configurational route. This would mean that rather than simply adopting configurational methodologies for organizational structure they would also have mechanisms and tools to understand the processes that were likely to operate within such structures. However, despite the various limitations in the conceptual underpinning of the structure-communication relationship explored in the Excellence study (J. Grunig, 1992; Grunig, Grunig and Dozier 2002), this work still represents the most significant examination to date of how structure may affect the functioning of communication / public relations departments in the organizational context. Indeed, other studies that have examined the issue of ‘structure’ in the communication context tend to have done so only in a rather piecemeal, isolated manner rather than laying down foundations for the construction of any substantive new explanatory conceptualization of how organizational or departmental structure may affect the operation and effectiveness of the communication / public relations function. For example, Holtzhausen (2002) explored the effects of structural change on communication, focusing primarily on the way divisionalization and decentralization of organizational structure may affect internal communication within a South African organization. Given the small-scale nature and specific location of the study, it is difficult to draw any general implications from the results of the study particularly in terms of the broader relationships between organizational and departmental structures and organizational communication as a whole. Van Leuven (1991) explored how the organization of public relations departments may take their lead from the overall corporate organizing or departmentalizing plans. Here Van Leuven argues that insufficient emphasis has been given to examining structure from organizational and
45 intra-organizational levels. Van Leuven found that when public relations departments are organized on the basis of ‘public or market’ rather than by ‘function’, there was much greater integration with marketing, HRM and other departments, and there was also greater appreciation of the function’s role. However, once again this relatively small-scale study has not been developed further to enable the conclusions that were drawn to be tested more widely. Likely (1998) charted the evolution of the public relations / communication function over the previous decade and identified a number of common trends, the most notable of which was perhaps the move away from treating the responsibility of communication / public relations in a compartmentalized manner. Rather, Likely argued, there has been a growing recognition that all members of an organization play a part in the organizational communication process, and that all formal communication functions - corporate communication, public affairs, marketing communication for example - need to work together and this echoes the messages from CMS perspectives. Likely went on to identify ten separate but related structural models for organizing the communication / public relations function within organizations, which he positions along a continuum from highly centralized structures at one extreme, to strongly decentralized structures or outsourced capability at the other extreme. A ‘service centre model’ is identified at the highly centralized end of the continuum, with the communication function structured around specific technical communication activities and services. A number of variations on the centralized department structure are identified where the function offers strategic as well as technical expertise and gradually moves towards an internal consultancy or account executive model, servicing the needs of other departments / functions (clients) within the organization. At the decentralized end of the continuum, we find a move away from a single centralized communication department towards a number of smaller departments [regionally or functionally based] operating on a stand-alone basis, or under the control of one or the other functional department. Alternatively, some organizations may opt for a complete or partial outsourcing model for their communication needs. Likely acknowledged that the models are not necessarily mutually exclusive, rather examples may be found in combination. For example, some organizations might choose to handle some elements
46 of their communication - e.g. employee communication - internally while outsourcing other aspects to external consultants. What is not known, however, is extent to which any one or combination of these structural models may exist in different organizational settings around the world. Equally, we have little information about what factors might push organizations towards the adoption of communication structures at the centralized or more decentralized end of this type of continuum. Thus, there appears to be no strong overriding theory or conceptual model to explain how the communication department may be ideally structured, or even if an idealized model is at all feasible. However, the balance of the evidence appears to point towards the adoption of structural options that take their lead from corporate priorities, policies and strategic decisions about the overall shape or configuration of the organization’s resources and operating divisions. What is far from clear is whether there might be any latitude for structural variations across and between different organizational functions, and if so, how such variations might be determined. It is perhaps important to explore now what factors appear to exert the greatest influence on organizational structural decisions, and particularly the structuring of the communication function. Once again such questions, and the answers to them, might emerge naturally from engaging a CMS perspective of organizational and functional structures, rather than relying on a more traditional structural-functional perspective. Traditional perspectives have taken us a considerable distance along the construction of our various business and corporate forms. However, serious limitations and difficulties are also apparent in the contemporary situation. These are all the more starkly pointed up by the fast changing virtual and networked environments in which we operate. Approaches that facilitate a more complex and richer understanding and appreciation of contemporary and future business environments should render organizations and their communication operations more flexible and responsive in turn. In particular, it will be useful to keep in mind issues of emergent structures rather than fixed structures, and, the role of discourse, power and social construction in creating, sustaining and transforming structures.
47 Variables / Influences on Organizational and Functional Structures One of the themes that has emerged either implicitly or explicitly throughout this review of the literature on organizational structure has been the influence of the environment context on organizational choices about the structural design. Indeed, recognition that organizational structure is essentially the product of ‘choice decisions’ taken by organizational leaders (Fritz, 1996; Mintzberg, 1989) helps to highlight what appear to be the two principal driving forces in determining organizational structure, namely, external environment pressures, on one hand, and the senior management preferences and prejudices with regards to structural decisions on the other hand. Of course, it is rarely the case that management is faced with a ‘blank piece of paper’ when it comes to structural decisions, and hence decisions to make wholesale changes to structures are generally more the exception than the rule. Nevertheless, as was highlighted earlier (see Anand and Daft 2007), there have been periods where a significant movement for change in the way organizations are structured and operated has emerged, as with the trend for ‘re-engineering‘ of organizational structures during the 1990s (Hammer and Champy, 1993). However, notwithstanding such trends, the important point is that structural change requires the intervention of some human agency to determine and sanction change. Thus, the question becomes one of identifying the main factors that appear to influence structural change decisions and perhaps shape the choices made. From a communication / public relations perspective, we are also concerned with how the communication function’s structure is determined – whether or not its structure is determined centrally by senior management and imposed on the function, or whether there is some latitude for localized structural decision making. Equally, there are questions about what role, if any, does communication play in shaping or maintaining the overall organizational structure. Although one of the earliest such studies, arguably Pugh’s (1973) research, which explored a range of possible contextual factors that might influence an organization’s structure, remains potentially as relevant today. This is a timely reminder that the most promising responses may well involve an amalgam of both traditional and more critical-style responses. The factors identified by Pugh included:
Origins and history - whether the organization is public or privately owned, patterns of ownership, location, etc.;
48
Ownership and control - type of control (public private organization), concentration of ownership;
Size - number of employees, assets, market position, etc.;
Charter - number and range of goods / services;
Location - number of geographically dispersed operating units; and
Interdependence - extent to which the organization depends on customers, suppliers, intermediaries, etc. Pugh went on to suggest that the most appropriate way to understand such
influences on structural configurations may be provided by adopting a contingency perspective in that different aspects of the organizational context will tend to figure more prominently in determining structure from case to case. Moreover, he pointed to a common weakness in much of the research into organizational structure in that it tends to offer a snapshot view of structure at a particular point in time, rather than examining structure and structural change over time. Here, Pugh argued that far more evidence is needed about the processes by which organizational structures are changed. Once again these arguments would seem to speak to the value of many of the ideas associated with a CMS perspective of structure and structural change. Pugh following the traditional convention of the period in which he was rooted identified the ‘physical’ architecture that was potentially important in structure. He also pointed at ‘processes’ but seemed to have less detailed commentary in relation to these. As has been alluded to above, CMS approaches can offer many insights into the processes and mechanisms that produce structures and the behaviours and people dynamics that play out within them. CMS perspectives on how power and discourse might operate in a modern and future context, whilst often rooted in what are relatively traditional or conventional structures, provide insights to inform and support an understanding of how particular communication processes and operational structures may come to exist. In one of the early seminal papers to examine the subject of organizational structure, Child (1972) reviewed the then body of literature concerned with the factors that appear to influence variations in organizational structure. Child identified three
49 principal influences on organizational structure: (i) the influence of environmental conditions, which are seen as a critical constraint upon the choice of effective structural forms; (ii) the impact of technological change; and (iii) the size of the organization. However, Child went on to argue that strategic choice by the dominant coalition in organizations, albeit taking account of environmental conditions, plays a far more important part in determining structure than any of the other independent variables. Examining each of these three variables further may shed further light on the type of structural choice decisions that organization leaders may have to make. First, in terms of environment context, a strong body of work has suggested that the higher the degree of environmental variability and uncertainty, the greater the need for organizations to adopt more adaptive and responsive structures, with roles being open to continual redefinition and a greater emphasis on lateral communication (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Hage and Aitkin, 1967; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Moreover, the greater the degree of environment complexity, the greater the profusion of environment information that decision makers may need to cope with. The argument has been that the monitoring of such diverse information requires additional role specialization to deal with increasingly diverse environmental challenges (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). These environmental challenges may be compounded by increasing levels of environmental threat to the achievement of organizational goals, which might suggest the need for tighter controls by decision makers and hence lead to a centralizing of the decision-making structure. Despite the logic of the arguments for a strong environmental influence on structure, Child argued that decision makers may often circumvent such influences either by exercising a degree of choice over which environments they will operate in, or by having sufficient power to help shape the existing environment in which the organization operates, or finally, decision makers may choose to react in a specific way to the environment because of differences between the reality of the environment and decision makers perceptions of that reality. In terms of technology’s influence on organizational structure, there appears to be considerable confusion in the literature as to what technology is, and what aspects of organizational structure it influences. Child pointed to Hage and Aikin’s operationalization of technology in terms of the ‘routineness of work’. From this
50 perspective, the prevailing technology is seen as a product of decisions about work plans, resources and equipment made in light of certain evaluations of the organization's position in its environment. Thus, a given technological configuration (equipment, knowledge of techniques, etc.) may exhibit certain short-term rigidities and thus may be a constraint on the adoption of new modes of operation. Rather than technology having implications for some effective mode of organizational structure, it may be better to view any link between the two as a product of the decisions taken by management regarding the tasks to be carried out and how they can be performed. Thus, Child argued that any association between technology and structure might be quite tenuous. In contrast, Dibrell & Miller (2002) have argued strongly that advancement in technology has indeed had its effects on organizational structure, with technologies allowing communication at great distances and at asynchronous times, removing the necessity for people working together to work from the same place. These modern concepts further open new avenues for organizational structures. The third of these variables, organizational size, is deeply embedded in the literature. Indeed, the importance of organizational size as a determinant or constraint on structure recurs throughout the literature (e.g. Robbins, 1990; Stanford, 2007; Pugh et al, 1969). Drawing the arguments together, Child suggested there are two main strands of causal argument relating size and structure. The first says increasing size offers more opportunities to reap benefits of increased specialization, which will manifest itself in terms of greater structural differentiation. As the number of sub-units and hence the complexity of management increases, senior management will need to impose a system of interpersonal controls and formal procedures. A second argument focuses on the problem of directing large numbers of people, which makes it impossible to employ a personalized, decentralized style of management. Instead, the likelihood is that larger organizations may adopt a centralized system using impersonal mechanisms of control. Of course as Child pointed out, the challenge of coping with large numbers of organizational members may be tackled by breaking large organizational units into smaller quasi-independent ones.
51 Notwithstanding these arguments about the potential influence of environmental conditions, technological development and size on organizational structure, Child argued that insufficient attention has been paid to the power of decision-makers within organizations to determine or change the structural configuration. In short, Child maintained that attempts to explain organizational structure, in terms of the various forces that may affect and or constrain the choice of structures, have focused on the possible constraints on the choice of effective structures, but have failed to consider the process of choice, or who exactly makes up the decision making team. Indeed, Child maintained that the composition of the so-called dominant coalition need not necessarily remain static for all classes of decisions. Thus, he argued it is important to recognize that structural choice decisions may reflect the personal preferences of members of the [dominant coalition] decision-making team at any one time, using their powers to shape the organizational structure to reflect their personal preferences. The Role of Human Agency One recurring question within the literature is that of whether there is an ‘ideal’ structure, or any general principles of organizational design that might inform management decisions about structural design within organizations. Given broad acceptance that structure does not materialize independent of human agency, the issue is largely about how far contextual considerations are likely to shape management choices about structure. Here consideration of the core dimensions of structure gives rise to a number of key organization structural challenges or questions about how best to organize people and tasks. In short, these can be summarized as: (i) how best to divide and co-ordinate the work and work-related processes throughout the organization – questions of differentiation and integration; (ii) where will decisions be taken within the organization – questions of centralization versus decentralization; and (iii) how will the organization attempt to control [formalize] the activities of its members – questions of standardization versus mutual adjustment (e.g. Dess et al, 1995; Bowditch and Buono, 2001). While these may be important considerations in understanding the overall organizational structuring, it is notable that they are not questions that have rarely if ever been discussed in any detail within the communication / public relations literature.
52 According to Robbins (1990), organizations shape patterns of structure for three main reasons. First, the natural selection model holds in that the environment lends itself to only a few organizational forms. Second, organizations search for internal consistency in structural characteristics that work well together, so as to be in equilibrium with their environment. Third, the number of viable configurations is often limited to what is in vogue, because managers are prone to follow what is trendy, be it participatory management, bureaucracy, or matrix management. In this sense, Robbins, at least in part, supported Child’s arguments about the need to look more closely at the role and motives of those holding the power to make decisions about the structure configuration of the organization and departments within it. Robbins argued that a major factor in the selection of structural options is the desire of those in power to employ an option that maximizes or at least maintains their control on power. But here again, this discussion is focused almost exclusively at the organizational / corporate level rather that the departmental / functional level. While focusing principally on organizational and functional relationships between the marketing and public relations functions, Cornelissen and Harris (2004) argued that theoretical approaches to examining how communication functions are organized have largely taken either an environmental or contingency theory perspective (e.g. Kotler and Mindak, 1978), or a strategic choice or power-control perspective (e.g. Grunig, 1992). While highlighting that research based on contingency precepts (Grunig and Grunig, 1989) has found little support for a link between the environment and organizational structure (when tested using the Hage-Hull typology), nevertheless Cornelissen and Harris cautioned against completely dismissing environmental or contingency theory as a valid explanatory framework of the communication structuring in organizations. They emphasized that “contingency theory is at least realistic in recognizing that there are no universal panaceas or answers to practicing managers’ questions regarding the organization and structuring of communication disciplines” (p.258). Hence, there is value in outlining the types of contingencies, whether in inter-functional dependencies between disciplines, or other environmental and organizational factors that may affect functional structural arrangements (Cornelissen, Lock and Gardner, 2001). In summary, Cornelissen and Harris suggested that the way in which communication
53 disciplines are organized is perhaps best recognized as situational and dependent upon the interdependencies in strategies and tasks performed by and associated with particular disciplines. Summarizing the arguments about the factors that appear to influence organizational structure, the evidence to date suggests that a combination of both external and internal influences appears to shape the way organizational structure is developed. Externally, environmental conditions and the demands of the market place appear to be important factors shaping organizational strategy and the related organizational structures. Technological advances, which have shaped the way in which many industries and organizations operate, have also brought about some significant changes in organizational structures. Internally, organizational size is perhaps the most obvious factor to influence organizational structure with larger organizations being associated with more bureaucratic mechanistic structures. However, as Child (1972) and other authors have argued, the influence of all of these external and internal forces may be limited when compared to the power and influence of senior management, particularly that part which may be the dominant coalition at a point in time, whose prevailing worldviews of the environment and the organization itself are likely to prove to be the most potent influence on an organization’s structure. The influence of key decision makers, and the power they have to shape and determine organizational and functional structure, has been one of the key themes highlighted when considering functional structures from a CMS perspective. However, CMS scholars have also pointed to the fact power and authority should not always be assumed to reside in the overt and explicitly labeled hierarchical parts of the organizational structure. Power can also be seen as a commodity or a force that moves in varying ways and patterns through and around the organization. For example, while the CEO may be the most senior executive, he or she can be rendered powerless and foolish by the non-action or non-delivery of a project by the most junior member of staff. As such, this is a form of power and when designing structures it is important to be mindful that although power may be programmed into the structure, there is no guarantee that it will operate in the pre-ordained manner.
54 International Perspectives On Organizational And Communication Department Structure We have already pointed to the lack of available literature that specifically examines the relationship between organizational structure and communication department structure, and this problem is exacerbated further when searching for literature that examines this theme from an international or global perspective. Moreover, because of the dominance of Western Anglo-Saxon-based literature in the field, there are relatively few studies of organizational communication function structures in non-Western corporations (e.g. Meyer, 1995). Public relations scholars arguably have tended to lag behind and overlook relevant developments taking place in the mainstream management thinking about the structuring of international / multinational and global corporations (Porter, 1986; Prahalad and Doz, 1987; Segal-Horn & Faulkner, 2010). Notwithstanding these limitations, there are a number of ad hoc studies of aspects of organizational structure in an international context, although they cannot be thought of as forming a meaningful body of knowledge on that topic at this stage. Papers, for example, by Koul (2009) and Sterne (2008) have explored aspects of organizational structure in India and New Zealand respectively. However, neither paper can be said to provide any significant insights into how organizational structure might be shaped by local culture and environmental conditions. Where most of the work over the past decade has been focused is on the steady growth of interest in international and global communication / public relations practice, which undoubtedly follows from the growth of interest in international trade. The majority of the research that has emerged, however, has tended to focus primarily on comparative studies of public relations practice in different countries or regions around the world, and on exploring the reasons behind the observed variations in the practice (e.g. Culbertson and Chen, 1996; Sriramesh and Vercic, 2009; Freitag and Quesinberry Stokes, 2009). Although such studies do throw some light on the organization of international communication functions, this tends to be achieved largely indirectly, rather than in terms of specific research into the structuring of international communication departments. However, what such studies have highlighted is the significant variations found in the level of sophistication of understanding of public relations, both amongst
55 practitioners and senior management in different countries around the world. Such variations have been attributed largely to differences found in the national / regional environment, and in the historical development of public relations in each country. Sriramesh and Vercic (2009) have identified a conceptual framework for analyzing the relationship between the organizational environment and the public relations practices found in any particular country or region. This framework comprises three infrastructural variables: (i) a country’s political system; (ii) its level of economic development; and (iii) its level of activism. To these three are added two further related variables, (iv) a country’s media environment and (v) its culture. While this collection of country studies offers valuable insights into how public relations is understood and practiced in countries around the world, the study was not designed specifically to examine how organizations might structure their communication departments when operating on an international or global scale. Nevertheless, what such studies can offer are insights into the type of influences and considerations that may well help shape the way organizations choose to configure their communication functions when faced with the challenge of operating on an international or global scale. One area where there has been a reasonably prominent discussion about the organization and management of the communication function in an international context has been in the debate about how multinational corporations might best approach the management of operations across potentially diverse international and / or global markets. In exploring the question of international or global management and control, the issue of international communication functional structure inevitably emerges. In many instances, the consideration of this from a communication perspective may well be performed indirectly, rather than as the central issue. Arguments have focused around the so-called ‘globalization - glocalization’ debate, of whether it is possible to develop a standardized global campaign offering or whether it is necessary / better to adapt and tailor products or services and associated communication to the local environmental conditions. In the latter case, it then becomes necessary to consider how best to organize and control locally based activities so as to achieve consistency across all of the organization’s communication activity. Wakefield (2009) considered the question of how multinational corporations have
56 structured their operations to accommodate both global imperatives and local values and attitudes, arguing that multinationals have tended to either centralize their finances and strategies, or have scattered divisions around the world with little or no effective coordination. In some cases, they have sought some combination of the two approaches. But regardless of structure, the managerial philosophy always seemed to boil down to how much centralized control and constraint management choose to place on host country units in the entity (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989). Thus, while there is a growing body of knowledge about how communication / public relations may be practiced in different countries around the world, and about the type of variables that may influence the way the practice manifests itself in different countries, there is relatively little research about the type of functional structures that organizations adopt to help manage international / global communication activities. Indeed, as Meyer (1995) has pointed out, much of the literature treats organizational structure, structural dimensions and structural configurations as universal concepts, and has failed to acknowledge that management choices about structural configuration may well be strongly influenced by cultural values and beliefs. Here again such arguments about the contingent nature of structural choice decisions and of the multiple perspectives that individuals may bring to the decision making process echo, at least in part, the central tenets of CMS thinking around this subject area. However, while not exclusively, much of the CMS commentary has originated from Northern hemisphere, North American and Northern European. This suggests that a particular group of values, mindsets and approaches are likely to predominate in those discussions and this is an idea to be mindful of when seeking to apply such ideas to wider geographical areas and regions. As has been alluded to above, culture is a multi-varied and multifaceted phenomenon and in implementing particular structure – communication choices and plans it is important to try to develop a deep understanding of how issues of power, discourse, boundaries, and constructions of meaning in different times and places might operate.
57 Summary Reflecting on what can be learned from this review of literatures relating to the concepts of organizational and departmental structure and communication, a number of important themes emerge and lessons are evident, which may in part help to address the initial research questions, and also inform the subsequent stages of field work in this research project. First, reflecting on the fundamental concepts and relationship between organizational structure and communication, the review highlights the need to distinguish between organizational design and organizational structure, with the latter representing one element of organizational design choices and processes. The literature review has also highlighted the lack of any universally applicable models of communication department structure, and more to the point, highlights the absence of a substantive body of literature within the communication / public relations domain focused on the issue of organizational and departmental structure. Thus, in constructing this review and in drawing inferences from it, it has been necessary to draw largely on research and ideas from the organizational and management theory schools. However, this fact, in itself, points to a significant gap in the public relations body of knowledge. Three major schools of thought / approaches to the study of organizational structure have been explored. First, we reviewed the two dominant schools: (i) the traditional approach of decomposing structure into a set of variables or dimensions; and (ii) the configurational school of thought which identifies organizational ‘types’ composed of specific combinations of structural variables. Moreover, we also introduced the idea of a more radical Critical Management Studies perspective of organizational and departmental structure, teasing out some of the implications arising from this perspective. The suggestion therein was that CMS approaches challenge and to some extent dismantle or even undermine the claims and positions of traditional approaches. In the case of the traditional approach, communication processes and patterns are treated as the product of the influence of various structural variables. Under the configurational approach, communication structures and processes are treated as an integral part of the configuration. Configuration approaches (aligned with, but not identical to, CMS approaches) can take on a more dynamic perspective,
58 recognizing that structures evolve and change over time in response to changing environmental conditions. Communication can be seen to play a prominent part in helping to shape the configuration of the organization. A CMS perspective, would also suggest the possibility of a more dynamic, contingency view of organizational structure that might reflect different environmental conditions and differing outcomes as a result of the role of human agency in the process. People do not simply act as conduits for communication, they also have political and socially constructed viewpoints that modify and interpret information. When we set these processes within an organizational structure it can be seen that only a rich and complex understanding and appreciation will provide an effective outcome for the organization. Such considerations point to the first significant implication from this literature review: The study of organizational and communication department structures needs to take on a more dynamic perspective, examining structural change over time rather than focusing on capturing only a static snap shot view of structures. Ideally, this study would have adopted a longitudinal research design so as to try to capture how communication department structure might change over time. Nevertheless, the study did ask participants to identify the number of structural changes to the communication department that had occurred in previous years, in an attempt to get at a more dynamic perspective of structural change ‘over time’. From our review of the different strands of literature, we were able to identify a number of centrally important ideas. These included:
Ideas pointing up degrees of complexity (the number of different component parts) and specialization (the type of specialized roles and thus units, such as organizing units by technical activities / services, by specific publics or stakeholder groups, by departmental management processes or by internal client group);
Centralization and decentralization (and the degree to which power and control over decisions is held with the top management hierarchy); and
Configuration (the shape of the authority structure, comprising the length of the chain of command and the span of control). With the configurational approach, this study explored the relevance of four - U-Form; M-Form; Matrix; and Virtual - of the five principal structural models identified in the literature: Simple Form; U Form; M Form; Matrix; and Virtual.
59 To these notions a further recurring theme emerged within the literature concerning the tendency to consider structure at the corporate or overall entity level. This involved how organizations organize the totality of their operational departments and functions rather than considering in-depth structure at the departmental level and the relationship and interaction between these two levels of structure. Indeed, as was highlighted earlier in this review, within the public relations literature there is relatively little discussion of departmental structures. A further important observation is that so much of the literature on structure has been the emphasis on describing and explaining different structural designs, at the expensive of any systematic and meaningful evaluation of their respective merits, particularly in terms of how structure might impact of the effectiveness of the communication department’s work. It was also noted that the limited amount of scholarly study and public relations theory-building in this field has relied to some extent on a particular traditional perspective of organizational theory literature (e.g. Hull-Hage, 1982) in seeking explanations of how structure might affect the functioning of communication / public relations departments. This consideration leads to the second important implication to emerge from this literature review: A comprehensive explanation of communication / public relations department structures and the effect of such structures on operational effectiveness requires a broader appreciation and possibly a combination of both traditional and configurational / critical perspective approaches to structure. Moreover, examination of these ideas from a broader and richer combination of traditions highlights the need in the future for organizational structures that acknowledge and embrace notions of flexibility [the virtual, networks in the organizational and communication context] whilst still, of course, possessing the characteristics of physical presence and structure such as buildings, fittings, reporting line charts and so on and so forth. In examining the variables that influence organizational and departmental structure, the emphasis to date has been focused largely on the traditional variables associated with organizational structure, such as centralization, size, and complexity. What the literature arguably fails to consider sufficiently is the significance of restructuring and its impact on centralization, size, and complexity. Certainly over the
60 past few decades, the repeated restructuring, with bouts of both downsizing and upsizing, of most organizational functions including the communication functions in organizations across the world has led to few lengthy periods of structural stability. The potential impact of this continual restructuring of communication functions does not appear to been given sufficient consideration in much of the contemporary communication / public relations literature. Perhaps an interesting observation arguably underpinning a meaningful discussion of departmental or functional structure in any area including communication is at what point does the size of department become a relevant issue for structure. Little explicit reference can be found to this issue either within the mainstream organizational literature or communication and public relations literature. It is important to realize and acknowledge that organizations and communications areas may well grow in size over time. Therefore, it is likely that, an organization may well move through several sizes, forms and structures during its lifetime. Nevertheless, in much of the existing commentary it is as if ‘size’ is treated as a ‘given’ when discussing structure rather than seeing it as a dynamic variable. As was discussed earlier, size like other variables is unlikely to be a constant, and will change over time. There is, therefore, a need to examine communication department size and structure over time and to discuss the implications of any organizational restructuring on the status of the communication department. That is, the changing size of communication department and its corresponding structure should be seen in relation to the changing size and structure of the organization itself. These considerations lead to a third implication to emerge from this review: Meaningful discussion and theory building about communication departmental structures, especially the stratification of structures, perhaps requires some minimal threshold level of departmental size to be established and that threshold and any deviations to be examined over time – particularly in relation to the changing size and structure of the organization. Closely related to this latter point is the need to determine how departmental membership and size are to be measured particularly in the context of some of the newer forms of network-based and virtual organizational forms. Therefore, to understand some of the effects of organizational restructuring, participants in this
61 study were asked questions about changes in communication department structure and the factors that influenced those changes. Communication department size was also examined in relation to the choice of organizational structures. A further weakness in the literature has been the lack of any careful examination of how culture and the need to manage departments / functions across different international contexts might affect the configuration of organizational structure. For example, Meyer (1995) has highlighted the possibility that many configurational theories may be culturally–bound, and may fail to take account fully of how regional or local cultural differences may play out in terms of the manifestation of different structural forms. Consideration of cultural influences leads to a fourth implication to emerge from this review: The need to examine more carefully to what extend does societal and organizational culture affect the way in which structural configurations manifest themselves in both the organizational and communication department contexts. Given the magnitude of the concepts of organizational culture and societal or country culture, this study could address few of the cultural factors that may, ultimately, influence communication department structure. The study, though, does attempt to look at the location of an organization’s headquarters and the number of countries the organization operates in and seeks to explore whether and how geographical and cultural diversity may impact on structural choice. Notwithstanding these previous implications drawn from this literature review, perhaps the most pervasive and important argument that recurs throughout the literature relating to structural forms and structural configurations is the importance of senior management choice decisions in determining overall and departmental structural design within organizations. Here public relations scholars (e.g. Grunig 1992; Grunig, Grunig and Dozier, 2002) have acknowledged the power-control theory perspective of how organizational structural is determined, but such explanations arguably fail to adequately explain the process of choice behind structural form decisions and the combination of ‘drivers’ that may affect such decisions particularly in the context of communication department structures. Rather than view people in organizations as being ‘programmed’, ‘steered’ or ‘guided’ by a given structure it is vital to remember that individuals are just as likely to exercise personal interpretations of processes within
62 structures. This, in turn, means that structures are prone to operating in varied and diverse manners that were not necessarily foreseen or envisaged at the outset of their design. This point leads to the final and perhaps most important implication from this literature review: The need to explore in more depth the composition of the decision-making team, the process of decision-making and the factors determining organizational and departmental structures within organizations. This study takes a first step in attempting to do so, by addressing the reporting arrangement of the CCO and the influence members of the dominant coalition and the CCO may have on the determination of communication department structure. Therefore, from our review of the available literature, the significant themes that we have identified as particularly important for the development of this study’s research questions and for our fieldwork were as follows:
Structural change occurs over time;
From a traditional perspective, the key dimensions of structure comprise complexity, specialization, centralization and configuration;
From the configuration perspective, five key structural models dominated the literature: Simple Form; U Form; M Form; Matrix Form; and Virtual Form;
The significance of both organizational and communication department size emerged as the key initial determinant of department structure;
The need to recognize that structure and structural choice decisions are contingent on a range of factors (rather than simple cause-and-effect relationships), not the least being the role of the human agents involved;
The significance of the international / global scope of an organization’s operations on structural choice decisions and functional structures;
The significance of organizational and societal culture in shaping functional structures; and
The significance of individual perceptions amongst key decision-makers (as opposed to, and in relation to, wider agents in the organization) responsible for determining structural options.
63 These themes were taken into consideration when developing our Research Questions that follow. Research Questions This study aims to further research in the area of communication department structure by answering the following seven research questions: RQ 1: Are there specific structures / models for communication departments? RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication department structure and organizational structure? RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication department structure? RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy? RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions? RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication department structures, what are they? RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication department structure?
64
Chapter 3 Methodology Triangulation of data has long been established as a strategy for conducting robust research. The primary benefit of triangulation is that it provides a number of independent data points that can then be analyzed to see the extent of overlaps in the phenomenon being studied. In social science, ‘triangulation’ can apply to a number of facets of the research process, for example: data triangulation; investigator triangulation; and methodological triangulation. This study consists of triangulation at all these stages in the process because we thought such an approach would best help us answer the research questions that guided this project. Literature Review Prior to the design of our research strategy for data collection, we undertook a comprehensive review of the literature about organizational and departmental structure and communication, which has been presented in Chapter 2 of this report. The literature review was revised based on the peer reviews conducted by the IABC Research Foundation in June 2010 (we had submitted the literature review in March 2010 for review by the IABC). The review of literature showed that very little empirical research had been conducted on the linkage between the structure of the communication department and the structure of the organization itself, between the structure of the communication department and the ability of the communication department to contribute to organizational effectiveness and between the structure of the communication department and the factors that influence the design of a communication department. Qualitative Method and Sampling Technique Among other things, the literature confirmed the wisdom of our initial plan (contained in the Proposal we made to IABC) to conduct qualitative interviews as a first phase of this project. Qualitative interviews are very appropriate for exploratory research projects because they help the researcher gather in-depth data that can help to uncover important features or variables, and / or reveal relationships between
65 relevant variables that enhance understanding of a phenomenon. The literature review, and the expertise of the original five members of the research team (which approximately totaled about 150 years either in communication practice or research / teaching) contributed to the development of a qualitative interview protocol of 15 primary questions. Many of the primary questions also consisted of 2 – 5 follow-up subquestions that team members used as needed to probe the interviewees. Conducting all the interviews based on such a protocol ensured that each member of the original five-person team solicited similar data from the interviewees. By their very nature, qualitative interviews are intense conversations and therefore each interviewer had the freedom of asking additional follow questions as warranted. Each member of the research team was assigned one or two continents from which to seek out interviews with CCOs. As per the mandate from the IABC, only CCOs from for-profit corporations and not-for-profit organizations were interviewed and surveyed for this study. Team members used their personal networks to seek interviews with CCOs in their respective continents / regions. In spite of the difficulty in identifying CCOs and then identifying and contacting CCOs who were willing to invest the time to support our project by agreeing to be interviewed, we succeeded in interviewing 26 CCOs – 11 more than the minimum number of 15 qualitative interviews that the IABC Research Foundation’s RFP had stipulated. We interviewed 24 heads of communication that led a communication department at headquarters. Headquarters communication departments were located on five continents: Asia (3), Africa (1), Europe (7), North America (6), and Latin America (7). We also interviewed two heads that managed regional communication departments (departments separate from the HQs department), to ensure we formed an appreciation of communication structure from a regional perspective. These two heads were located in Europe, and were employees of large multinationals with HQs based elsewhere. Of the interviewees, seventeen were male and nine female. Nineteen were CCOs in private sector organizations and seven led communication departments in non-profit organizations. The CCOs worked in organizations in a range of industries such as banking, manufacturing, technology, energy, resource extraction, utilities, social responsibility, and humanitarian assistance.
66 Private sector, for profit organizations ranged in size between 3000 and 155,000 employees, with non-profit sector organizations between 7 and 17,000 employees. The Latin American interviews were conducted in Spanish and Portuguese while the rest were conducted in English. Every effort was made to try to conduct the interviews in person, but given the geographical dispersion of the interviewees (because we designed the study to be truly global), several interviews had to be conducted over the telephone. The interviews lasted between 40 – 90 minutes. The interviews were recorded (subject to interviewees permitting), or field notes were taken by the team member during the interview to record the conversation. In many instances, we sent the primary 15 questions of the qualitative interview protocol to interviewees beforehand so that they could be prepared with their responses. The follow-up questions were asked as needed during the interview. Some of the interviewees provided written responses to these questions in addition to giving their responses during the interviews and/or provided organizational charts of their communication function. The interviews were conducted between January and April 2010. Each interviewer relied on the recordings or field notes to capture the information divulged during the interviews for each of the questions. We then collated the 26 responses to each of the questions and then looked for patterns emerging from the collective data set. These findings helped us design the questionnaire used in the webadministered survey. The findings from these interviews are described in the next chapter. Short summaries of each interview are provided in the Appendix. Quantitative Method and Sampling Technique Whereas qualitative interviews provide richness in data, the subsequent quantitative survey provided breadth of data that enables the generalization of the findings. Because we could not find any previous empirical studies that had analyzed this topic, we designed the questionnaire used in this study. The resulting questionnaire contained 39 questions and we estimated that it would take respondents between 15 – 18 minutes to respond online. Thirty-five questions were close-ended, with four being open-ended. Given the global nature of the study and our desire to gather data from all five continents, we decided that it would be most efficient to administer the
67 questionnaire over the web. We therefore placed the questionnaire on the university web server of one of the members of the research team. The Latin American questionnaires were deployed in both the Portuguese and Spanish languages. The structure and intent of the English-language questionnaire was strictly adhered to in both the Spanish and Portuguese versions. Sampling Originally, the IABC Research Foundation asked that the survey focus on IABC members solely, with the intent to reach the highest-level IABC member in each organization - the CCO or head of the primary communication department. Given the low number of IABC members out of the total membership that qualified as CCOs (just over 200) and factoring in low response rates, we proposed that the sample extend outside of the IABC membership. Expecting difficulty in identifying and reaching CCOs, we broadened the scope to include any CCO working in the private or non-profit sectors. Beginning in May 2010, we sent out e-mail solicitations that described the purpose of this study and provided the url for the web-based questionnaire. We began with the CCOs who were IABC members using the IABC’s membership list. Respondents had to simply click on the url to access the questionnaire and respond online. Subsequently, the same email and url were made available through intermediaries to CCO members of the following organizations:
Institute for Public Relations;
Arthur Page Society;
Federation of African Public Relations Association (FAPRA);
Public Relations Institute of South Africa;
The European Association of Communication Directors;
Council of Communication Management (now the Communication Leadership Exchange);
Public Relations Institute of Australia; and
68
Latin American PR Associations. In addition to the established lists above, we also created our own database of
email IDs of senior practitioners, especially for the UK and EU. We did this by combining the Financial Times top 500 European companies with the membership list of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR). We then accessed the web sites of all these companies to identify the senior most communication manager and obtained contact details for each of them. Although we were not always successful in getting contact information despite extensive searches of company documentation or web sites, we did generate a list of about 600 UK and EU CCOs in this manner. We also contacted several other national public relations associations but they declined to support the survey for various reasons. The most frequently cited reason was that these associations conducted their own annual surveys and were concerned about going to their members too often. Obtaining a reasonable number of responses using these lists proved most challenging. Therefore, the team extended the administration of the survey past the earlier deadline of July 2010 and decided to use the snowballing technique – using interpersonal communication through personal networks – to solicit responses. This process began at the IABC annual international conference, held in 2010 in Toronto in June, and extended through the summer until the end of September. Although we had initially intended to close the survey by mid-July (about a month after the IABC conference), the closing of the survey was delayed twice to increase the overall response rate and also to try to increase the responses from some continents. In particular, the intervention of a couple of IABC members after the annual conference facilitated the increase in the number of responses from Asia, Africa, and Australasia. Mr. Bish Mukherjee was particularly helpful using his network of IABC members to send three waves of requests through June, July, and August. When the survey administration was finally closed in late September 2010, we had received usable responses from 293 respondents based on all six continents. The response rate could
69 not be determined accurately because of the rather extensive use of the snowball sampling technique. The quantitative data were analyzed using the latest version of SPSS - Predictive Analytics Software Statistics (PASW). The analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data took place in 2011 and 2012, with the report writing in 2012 and 2013. As noted earlier, the schedule that was originally adopted was re-worked over this period to accommodate job changes, work moves, illnesses, accidents and family deaths among team members.
70
Chapter 4 Results and Linkages to Research Questions In this chapter, we present the findings from the two phases of empirical fieldwork described in chapter 3, the in-depth interviews from a sample of Chief Communication Officers (CCOs) and the on-line survey of CCOs drawn from an international sample of organizations. In presenting the findings of this research, the data has been organized around the seven research questions that we identified after an exhaustive review of the literature on the subject. For each research question, the findings derived from both the qualitative and quantitative fieldwork are presented together, but in sequential order. We believe that this approach to presenting the data offers a more rounded and clearer insight into what the study has revealed about each of these core dimensions of the subject area under investigation. However, before looking in more detail at what the study reveals about the issue of structure and its application in the communication / public relations context, we firstly offer an overview of the nature of the research sample in order to contextualize the data related to the research questions. Thus, this first section of the findings provides a profile the Chief Communication Officers (CCOs) respondents in the sample, the size and scope of their respective organizations and of the communication functions they manage, and the key aspects of their operational roles such as their inclusion in strategic decision making, functions performed, etc. Once this sample profiling is complete, we will then turn to examine the findings relating to each of the seven research questions. Here it is worth reiterating that the RFP required us to gather data from Chief Communication Officers in both for-profit organizations and in not-for-profit organizations. The CCOs had many titles besides that of Chief Communication Officer, such as: Senior Vice-President; Vice-President; or Director. CCOs who worked for government, be that government at the federal, state / provincial or regional / municipal levels, were not to be included in the sample. Heads of communication consulting agencies, such as presidents, vice-presidents or directors, also were not included.
71 Sample Profiling Qualitative Research: Sample Profile Turning first to examine the composition and profile of the sample of CCOs interviewed in phase one of the study, the CCOs were drawn from a broad cross section of organizations that operated globally (16), continentally (3), nationally (5) or regionally / locally (2). The sample comprised some 26 Chief Communication Officers (CCOs): heads of Headquarters communication departments (24) or regional communication departments (2). These interviews were conducted either in-person or by telephone. In terms of gender, the sample comprised 17 male and 9 female CCOs. In terms of forprofit versus not-for-profit sectors, the sample broke down into 12 males and 7 females working in the for-profit sector and 5 males and 2 females in the not-for-profit sector. The for-profit, corporate or private sector organizations represented in the sample included companies from a variety of fields including: finance; technology; manufacturing; consumer goods; energy; and pharmaceuticals. Not-for-profit or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) included those in the fields of youth work, emergency services, utilities and social responsibility. These organizations were found to have adopted a variety of organizational structural forms, that could be broadly mapped to one or other of the structural models identified in the literature review chapter. Mapping the organizations represented by these 26 CCOs in our sample to the broad forms of organizational structure identified earlier in Chapter 2, we found that: 5 were identified as working in simple form structures; 9 in unitary (U) form; 8 in multidivisional (M) form; and 4 in matrix form of organizations. None of the interviewees worked in an organization with a networked / virtual form of organizational structure. As far as gender is concerned, we found that both male and female CCOs worked in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations and both male and female CCOs worked in organizations that had simple form (2 male; 3 female), U-form (7 male; 2 female), M-form (6 male; 2 female) and matrix form (2 male; 2 female). Female CCOs were almost evenly divided among these four structural forms, while the majority of male CCOs worked in U or M-form structures.
72 Quantitative Research: Sample Profile Turning now to examine the quantitative survey sample, which compromised some 293 CCOs who responded to the survey. However, 15 respondents indicated that they worked for government agencies, which meant that they had to be excluded from the study because the Request for Proposal (RFP) had required us to only focus on forprofit, private sector organizations and not-for-profit organizations. Hence, the results are based on the responses from the remaining sample of 278 respondents. This sample comprised 220 respondents who reported working for for-profit organizations (79.7%) and 56 for not-for-profit ones (20.3%), with 2 not indicating the type of organization they worked for (see the Appendix F, Table Q1). The geographical profile of organizations in the sample is summarized in Table 1 below. As illustrated, 150 of these organizations operated in less than 10 counties and in fact, 92, or nearly a third of the respondent organizations, operated only in one country. Thus, while around one third of the organizations in the sample operated on a purely domestic basis in their home countries, two thirds of the sample was found to operate in more than one country. Indeed, at the other extreme, 50 (18%) of the organizations indicated that they operated in between 101 – 150 countries. Table 4.1: Geographical distribution of sample organizations Number of countries in which organizations operate
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1
92
33.0
33.0
33.0
2-10
58
21.0
21.0
54.0
11-25
26
9.4
9.4
63.3
26-50
31
11.2
11.2
74.5
51-75
13
4.7
4.7
79.1
76-100
8
2.9
2.9
82.0
101-150
50
18.0
18.0
100.0
278
100.0
100.0
Total
As with the qualitative phase of the research, organizations in the survey sample were found to operate across a very broad range of sectors ranging from asset
73 management (financial services) to technology, manufacturing, consumer goods, energy, pharmaceuticals and wholesale distribution. A full breakdown of the sectors represented in the sample is provided in Table Q2 in Appendix F to the report. The literature review indicated that organizational size (indicated by number of employees) is generally a key indicator of the structural design choices likely to be manifest both within functional areas as well as for the organization as a whole. The size profile of organizations in this study is summarized in Table 2 below. As can be seen, the majority of organizations employed less than 5000 people, with only just over 8% employing over 100,000. Against this, we should consider the fact that Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) make up at least 90% - and depending on the continent or country upwards of 96-98% - of all for-profit organizations worldwide. Medium size enterprises are usually defined as having less than 250 employees. As Table 2 indicates, 77 organizations in our sample, comprising both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, employed 1000 or fewer employees. This represented only 28.1% of all organizations. Therefore, it’s clear that any medium size enterprises in the sample made up a much lower percentage. Indeed, the distribution of different-sized organizations within the sample may well represent a degree of bias towards larger sized organizations when compared to the typical size profile of organizations within the global population as whole. Table 4.2: The total number of employees in sample organizations Number of employees
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Below 1000
77
27.7
28.1
28.1
1001-5000
80
28.8
29.2
57.3
5001-25,000
49
17.6
17.9
75.2
25,001-100,000
44
15.8
16.1
91.2
Above 100,000
24
8.6
8.8
100.0
274
98.6
100.0
4
1.4
278
100.0
Total Missing System Total
Frequency
74 Size was also identified in our literature review as a key driver of communication department structures. Thus, as is revealed in Table 3 below, it was notable that in nearly 32 per cent of the sample, the communication departments comprised fewer than 5 employees, with 60 per cent of the sample having less than 10 employees and 77.6 per cent having less than 25 employees. This finding is in line with much of the anecdotal evidence as well as the literature, which suggests that in perhaps the majority of cases, communication departments tend to comprise a handful of, albeit, very talented individuals. Indeed, the fact that we had some 22.4% of our sample having over 25 employees in their communication department (9.6% with between 26 and 50 employees; 6.8% with between 51 and 100; and 6% with over 100) might be seen as quite remarkable. Interestingly, 5% of CCOs were the sole employee in the communication department and 6% led communication departments employing more than 101 employees. Table 4.3: The number of employees in communication departments Number of Employees
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
0-10
145
52.2
58.0
58.0
11-25
49
17.6
19.6
77.6
26-50
24
8.6
9.6
87.2
51-100
17
6.1
6.8
94.0
101 and above
15
5.4
6.0
100.0
250
89.9
100.0
28
10.1
278
100.0
Total Missing System Total
Frequency
Turning to the geographic scope of the respondents’ communication responsibilities, eighty-four (30%) of the respondents indicated they were responsible for communication at the global level, 32 (11%) at the continental level (e.g. North America or Europe), 118 (42%) at the national level and 43 (15%) at the regional / local level. Interestingly, while more than two-thirds of organizations in our sample operate on a global or continental basis and thus internationally, just over 40% of CCOs have
75 global or continental communication responsibilities. This breakdown of responsibilities is shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4.4: Scope of the communication department responsibilities Responsibilities Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Global Level
84
30.2
30.3
30.3
Continental Level
32
11.5
11.6
41.9
118
42.4
42.6
84.5
43
15.5
15.5
100.0
277
99.6
100.0
1
.4
278
100.0
National Level Regional / Local Level Total Missing System Total
As indicated in the previous chapter, the survey questionnaire for South American organizations was administered in Spanish and Portuguese and the resulting data, which was collected separately from the English language survey, was analyzed separately and the results then aggregated together with the English survey. It was not possible to analyze the data from these two language surveys separately by the continent or the country where the respondent lived. However, based on the CCOs’ responses to the question asking where the headquarters of their communication department were located, it was possible to determine the global spread of the sample. This distribution of communication department headquarters around the world is summarized in Table 4.5 below.
76 Table 4.5: The location of the headquarters for the communication department Communication HQs
Frequency
Africa
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
7
2.5
2.6
2.6
Asia
15
5.4
5.6
8.2
Australia
16
5.8
5.9
14.1
Europe
49
17.6
18.1
32.2
North America
112
40.3
41.5
73.7
South America
70
25.2
25.9
99.6
1
.4
.4
100.0
270
97.1
100.0
8
2.9
278
100.0
New Zealand Total Missing System Total
Percent
This first section of the findings chapter has outlined the profile and characteristics of the organizations and their communication functions that comprised both the qualitative and quantitative study samples. This sample profile provided an insight into the organizational context in which the rest of the results can be interpreted. The next section of the chapter offers a systematic analysis and critique of the qualitative and quantitative data gathered by this study, analyzing the data relating to each of the research questions in turn. Key Findings from the Qualitative and Quantitative Research
In this second and main part of the findings chapter, we will present the analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data collected during the research fieldwork, structuring the presentation of the findings around each of the key research questions (RQs). In analyzing the quantitative survey data relating to each of the RQs, we have concentrated the discussion around those variables and variable relationships that appeared particularly relevant to each RQ in turn. However, for the purposes of completeness and transparency, the sets of analysis tables, both frequencies and cross tablulations, have been included – in Appendix F for the former and in Appendix G for the latter. (Because of the length of
77 these files, they are attached as separate documents.) In terms of the reporting of the quantitative findings in this chapter, it is also important to note that as was pointed out in the methodology chapter, respondents did not always complete all of the survey questions and for this reason the total number of responses used to construct the various cross tabulation and other analysis tables does vary somewhat, although without compromising the overall integrity of our findings. For each frequency or cross tabulation analyzed, we have included the number of respondents who answered the one question for the frequency and both questions for the cross tabulation. One should note that each cross tabulation is based on the common respondents to both questions. Therefore, at times, the numbers reported may vary between a given frequency and that frequency within a cross tabulation.
RQ 1: Are There Specific Structures / Models For Communication Departments? Findings In addressing this first research question, the qualitative interviewing stage of the research sought to probe respondents about such issues as the size, staffing and organization, and management of the various sub-functions comprising the communication function in their respective organizations. Questioning also probed such issues as reporting relationships and the position of the communication function within the organization’s overall structure. Similarly, the quantitative stage of the research sought to examine structural patterns and configurations and also the type of factors influencing the way that communication functions were organized and managed. Qualitative Research Findings Eleven (11) of the 24 HQs CCOs that were interviewed headed what they claimed to be a stand-alone, fully integrated communication department – the sole communication department at headquarters (HQs) in their organization combined with the direct reporting of regionally based departments to the CCO. In terms of size, these communication departments varied quite markedly, employing between 3 and 580 (regionally based employees who report directly to the single headquarters department
78 are included in these figures). These 11 fully integrated departments included a variety of typical core communication disciplines such as external communication, internal communication, media relations, issues management and web communication. Another four CCOs, with the CCO reporting directly to the CEO, led departments that were seen to be ‘mostly integrated’, where the majority of communication units were closely integrated into a single department. For these four, there was either a government relations, investor relations, marketing communication or employee communication unit at HQs that reported directly elsewhere but functionally to the CCO or one or more regionally based units that reported functionally to the CCO and directly to a regional head. The strengths of operating as a single integrated department were summed up by one of the respondents, who commented as follows: “It provides for better career path planning and advancement opportunities. It supports the ability to cross-train and to leverage our resources and skill sets. It allows for the appropriate back up within small teams. And, it enables a stronger collective "brand presence" by having all disciplines under one umbrella.” Another respondent argued that, in an organization where communication is not integrated and therefore decentralized in to multiple HQs units, there is often: “… a lack of in-house back up resource, which can result in workload bottlenecks occurring, a lack of succession planning and a lack of identifiable business outcomes.” In some cases, where the integrated HQs department had direct responsibility for regionally based communication, it also had units based on geographical regions. Commenting on the value of an organizational model that is integrated horizontally as well as vertically, one respondent commented: “With integration, there are more opportunities to redeploy specialized resources based on demand. Since most of our staff members are located in dispersed business units, countries or markets, it would be impossible otherwise to balance out workload peaks and valleys.”
79 Typically, these single, fully or mostly integrated, communication departments were found to contain between two and eight separate, specialized organizational units. It was perhaps hardly surprising that the larger the size of the communication department in terms of the number of employees, the greater the number of sub-units. These integrated communication departments were structured into component parts in a variety of ways, organized in the main by one or more of four primary methods:
By technical communication activities and services (by support / practice areas and / or skill sets providing: writing/editing; planning and evaluation; web site governance, posting and maintenance; events / exhibits; graphic design and production; social media; audio / visual production; advertising; translation / revision; speech writing; etc.).
By internal client / business line / geographic office (with account executives or account teams supporting HR (HR Communication); Marketing (Marketing Communication); Finance; Legal; CEO’s office; operational business units; regional offices; etc.);
By specific internal or external stakeholder groups or publics (community; investor; customer; employee; donor; member; etc. and thus by a dedicated unit: Community Relations; Investor Relations; Customer Communication; Employee Communication; Donor Communication; Member Communication; etc.); and / or
By a general, broad PR/Communication disciplines with titles such as external communication; corporate communication; reputation management; brand management (in most cases this was restricted to corporate identity); media relations; issues management; risk management; crisis management; relationship management; corporate social responsibility; etc.). Thus within this integrated communication department structure, some
employees were grouped into a component part based on a different organizational rationale than the rationale employed for organizing a separate and neighbouring component of communication employees. These communication departments mixed a number of these four primary organizing methods into their own overall hybrid model. One respondent provided a glimpse of her organization’s hybrid model: “(The) mixed structure (is) largely based on function (e.g. web team and social media), whilst media/PR is largely aligned with geographic regions. (The) strategic
80 communications group is a strong content aggregator and integrates across this department and the marketing department.” One of the communication heads interviewed led a corporate communication department (and reported to the CEO) where there were equally strong and discreet marketing communication and employee communication departments (the heads of which also reported to the CEO). This was an organization where there were three large independent communication departments at HQs and where there was no one primary, central, integrated department. The strengths of a function-specific department is, as one on-line respondent commented: “… speed, communication strategy integrated with business strategy, functionspecific professional excellence, time-sensitive, issue-specific specialization and an affordable cost to the business.” On the other hand, another respondent highlighted the potential downside of this approach, particularly when all of these separate departments do not report to the CEO: “Internal Communications reports into HR while the External Communications function reports into Relationship Marketing and Insight, so it is hard to keep things aligned because our priorities are sometimes different.” Examining the lines of reporting across the sample of organizations, twenty of the CCOs we interviewed stated that their organization had communication units located outside of HQs. These regional communication units or departments had geographically-based responsibility for country-specific or continental communication. Examining the variety of reporting relationships, the study found:
11 of the 20 heads interviewed had regional communication departments that reported directly and solely to them at the HQs communication department;
In 4 cases, the HQ-based communication CCO also had a regional communication department that reported directly to a regional executive, but also functionally to the HQs CCO;
In 5 organizations, regional communication departments did not report either directly or functionally to the HQs CCO and operated fully independently of the HQs communication department; and
81
Six organizations did not have regionally based communication departments. Certain forms of organizational structure accommodated regional operations
more often than others: simple form (2 out of 5 have regional communication operations); U-form (6 out of 8); M-form (8 out of 9); and matrix (4 out of 4). The five regional communication departments that were independent of the HQs communication department were found in M-form organizational structures. What was unclear was whether the structural form merely ‘accommodated’ the regional decentralization of communication functions, or whether it served to promote such regional decentralization. In terms of upward reporting from the communication department, 19 of the 24 HQ-based CCOs we interviewed reported to the top executive (CEO or equivalent). Most of the rest reported to a second-tier executive (such as the Head of HR; the Chief Marketing Officer; or the Director of Sustainability). These executives had additional responsibilities besides oversight of the communication department and they in turn reported to the top person. One interviewee reported to a third-tier executive, to a VicePresident who reported to a Senior Vice-President who reported to the CEO. In the case of the 2 regional CCOs, they reported to the regional head. Only 4 of the HQs CCOs did not sit on the top executive management committee. One respondent, whose views seemed to reflect those generally held by the CCOs we interviewed, commented on the importance of having a direct reporting line to the organization’s CEO: “As Senior VP Communications, I report directly to the CEO and serve on the Company's Executive Committee. I participate in the strategic direction of the Company and have a voice at the table. I have first hand knowledge of the Company's direction. Further, I have the support of the Senior Leadership team.” Interestingly, all of the CCOs we interviewed utilized the services of communication agencies or consultants, although some did more contracting out than others. Approximately 30% of the interviewees performed over 90% of their communication work in-house and only employed consultants occasionally for project work. Fifty percent of the CCOs carried out between a half and 90% of their
82 department’s communication activities in-house and used consultants for project work, major campaigns or programs or had them on retainer. Less than 20% of the CCOs performed 50% or less of all work in-house using their own resources. In this last category are CCOs who outsourced complete disciplines such as: reputation/brand management; government relations; media relations; and/or advertising. CCOs of communication departments, whether in simple form, U-form, M-form and matrix form organizations, all contracted-out or outsourced to a lesser or greater extent. All of the CCOs either were contracting-out or outsourcing to a lesser or greater extent, whether they organized their department by services, by stakeholders and / or by internal client. One CCO spoke of what he called a “shared service model”, whereby he outsourced whole sub-functions based on a cost / benefit analysis. His communication department provided services to company operations in a good number of countries. They ranked the countries and for low-ranked countries they outsourced the full communication program to external PR agencies. As the CCO commented: “Our model of flexible staff in a shared services model is gaining ground. For a lot of companies, this will be the future as it brings down the cost heavily, but you can still uphold high-quality communication.” Looking across the complete set of 26 CCOs interviewed, it was evident that there was not one dominant communication department structural model or form, rather the structure varied across the sample of communication departments. Indeed, the communication departments varied across a whole range of dimensions: in terms of number of full time employees, whether or not they led an integrated department structure, whether they organized by client, by activities / services, by general disciplines and/or by stakeholders and whether they had regionally based communication departments reporting to them directly, functionally or not at all. Thus, in effect each organization seemed to adopt its own structural configuration and approach. As one interviewee stated: “Although our functional structure might not suit other companies, the structure is the ‘right’ structure for the business as it is.”
83 Quantitative Research Findings: To address this first and each subsequent research question, several statistical indicators were used and these are discussed further in the following section of the report. The relevant summary data analysis tables for this and each of the other six key research questions (RQs) are shown in Appendix G to the report. The first indicator (N= 275) studied was Q #4 the relationship between the CCO’s sphere of operation (global, continental, national or regional) and the Q #10 communication functions (disciplines) for which the CCO was responsible, which provides an indication of how the communication department has been structured. The top four communication disciplines performed by private sector CCOs were external corporate communication / public relations / reputation management (85%); media relations (80%); internal / employee communication (75%) and issues / crisis management (74%). In term of their sphere of operation, 92 of our for-profit respondents had responsibilities at the national level and 84 at the global level. However, the data revealed that the CCO’s sphere of operation did not significantly alter their involvement in the top (three / four) disciplines in for-profit organizations. Interestingly, a similar pattern emerged in the data for not-for-profit organizations, with the most prominent disciplines being external corporate communication / public relations / reputation management (cited by 52 respondents) and then media relations and issues / crisis management (both cited by 50 respondents). Web-based communication edged out internal / employee communication as the fourth most prominent function for not-for-profit CCOs. (It should be noted that social media was not provided as a separate category in the on-line survey. Interestingly enough, in the space provided under Other to write in other disciplines, there was no mention of the term social media or such examples as Twitter, Facebook or YouTube. Much has changed in the past four years since the survey was developed. Today, we recognize that social media collectively would be a top discipline in a typical communication department.) What emerged for both the for-profit and not-for-profit organizations in the sample was the fact that the CCOs’ pattern of functional responsibilities showed little if any difference across different spheres of operation, whether that sphere be global,
84 continental, national or regional / local. The vast majority of CCOs had the same top four responsibilities regardless of the sphere or scope of their responsibilities. A second indicator (N= 262) relevant to this research question is the relationship between the CCO’s Q #4 sphere of operation and Q #11 whether the communication department was integrated under the CCO. Of the 206 CCOs who responded to both of these questions, only just over a half (116) said they headed integrated communication departments. The fact that 90 (44%) of these CCOs indicated that did not head an integrated communication department might perhaps reflect the diffused way communication has been structured in those organizations. Obviously, in almost half the cases, there was an additional communication unit (or units) at headquarters (the top three units outside of the responsibility of the CCO being marketing communication, investor relations and government relations) or in the regions independent of the CCO led department. This finding is different than what we found in our interviews, where the majority of CCOs led a single, integrated department. This marked contrast in the degree of integration of the communication departments is also interesting given that the majority of the CCO-led communication departments in the sample have 25 or fewer employees. That is, slightly more than half of the CCOs who managed departments with 25 or fewer employees led a fully integrated department while slightly less than half of them managed their communication department in an organization where there other communication specialists organized into units or departments that were outside of their direct control. Again, when this issue of functional integration was juxtaposed with the organizations’ respective spheres, there was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and the extent to which communication departments operate on an integrated basis. In the case of the not-for-profit organizations in the sample, 38 had integrated communication departments while 18 did not – a percentage split that was quite close to that found in the private sector. Again, the geographic sphere of operation did not appear to be a particularly significant factor influencing the extent to which not-for-profit organizations chose to integrate their communication functions or not. This is notable since we have already seen that
85 approximately 41% of the CCOs in our sample had global or continental responsibilities – even though almost two-thirds of the organizations operated globally or continentally. The Q #22 level of hierarchy (stratification of a department) was the third indicator (N= 231) chosen for analysis for this research question. Of the CCOs who responded to this question, an overwhelming 199 headed departments with only two or three levels of stratification. Ninety-eight of these CCOs headed departments with just two levels of hierarchy where the CCO formed one layer, with a single layer of communication staff reporting directly to her / him. In the remaining 101 cases, the CCOs headed departments with a three level hierarchy, where essentially a middle layer of managers served to coordinate and organize communication staff at the implementation end of the functional chain of command. In only 13.8% of cases in the sample did we find departments that operated with four or more levels of stratification where the CCO formed the first level, managers the second, supervisors the third and those who reported to supervisors were the fourth level. Only 8 departments in the sample had five or six levels of hierarchy. With regard to the size of the communication department, when we examined Q #15 the size of the department (N= 250), we noted that 194 CCOs led communication departments of less than 25 employees. Of the 194, 145 led departments of less than 10 employees. It would seem that for departments of under 25 employees, CCOs put in place a structure that had two or three levels of hierarchy, with the two levels more dominant in departments of under 10 employees and the three levels more prevalent in departments of under 25. In turn, as the size of the department increased, CCOs could employ four or five levels, with only the larger departments creating five or six levels of hierarchy. If there is a common threshold needed to move to the next level of hierarchy, it appears to be nine to ten employees for moving from two to three levels and then somewhere between the high twenties and low thirties to justify movement from three levels to four levels. Communication departments of over 51 employees appear to employ four or five levels. One obvious explanation for the relatively ‘flat’ hierarchical structure of communication departments in the sample would appear to relate directly to the size and geographically dispersion of the for-profit organization’s operations. However,
86 looking first at Q #4 CCOs sphere of operation, the sample responses revealed that 48 of 61 CCOs who were responsible for global operations headed departments where the hierarchical control structure comprised only two or three levels, which was broadly the same structure found in the vast majority (72 of 81 CCOs) of nationally based communication functions. In short, the evidence of this study suggested that a private sector organization’s sphere of operation did not seem to significantly influence the extent of the functional hierarchy found in organizational communication departments. Department size, on the other hand, does seem to offer a more likely explanation for the pattern of hierarchical control structures observed. As highlighted earlier, given that the majority of communication departments in our sample employed less than 25 communication practitioners, it would appear logical that with such relatively small numbers employing a flatter management structure likely would be adopted in most cases. Within not-for-profit organizations, the dominant structure to emerge was that of two or three levels of hierarchy, which characterized about half of the communication departments in the sample. Again, there was very little difference found in the communication departmental structure between national and globally based not-forprofits, which seems to imply that sphere of operation does not influence stratification of departments. The basis used for Q #4 the sphere of operation and Q #31 basis of organizing staff (N= 275) within communication departments was the fourth indicator studied for this research question. Technical communication activities and services, such as specialist positions or groups that perform writing / editing, event planning, web site postings, media monitoring; publications; etc., were the predominant basis for organizing staff both in for-profit (106 of 219) and not-for-profit (29 of 56) communication departments. Organizing staff to serve specific stakeholders (such as employees, customers, investors, etc.) was cited by 87 of the private sector CCOs in this sample as a factor that influenced department structure - while 59 for-profit CCOs reported directly supporting internal clients as determining how staffs were organized into units in the communication department. As for not-for-profits, both internal clients (13) and stakeholders (12) were seen as equally important as the basis for organizing staff.
87 When we examined the link between Q #4 the sphere of operation and Q #31 basis of organizing staff (N= 275) within the communication department, two trends stood out. Once again, communication activities / services emerged as the favoured basis for departmental organization for both for-profit CCOs with global operations (36 of 72) and those with national operations (48 of 94). As for not-for-profits, 7 of 11 with global operations and 14 of 23 who headed national operations identified communication activities and services as the factor that influenced the organization of staff, showing a moderately strong relationship between the two. Clearly, Q #7 reporting relationship and Q #4 sphere of operations (N= 266) can serve as a key indicator of organizational structure in general, as well as that of the communication department in particular. The survey evidence on the reporting relationship that CCOs had within their organizations found that of the 214 for profit CCOs who responded to this question, slightly less than half (103) reported to the CEO / President / top executive of their organization. The next set of responses were of a far lower order, with highest response being Chief Marketing Officer (17), followed by Chairman of the Board (13), Chief Human Resources Officer (13), and Chief Strategic Planning Officer (12). This approximate 50% ratio held up across all spheres of operation. Thus, having around half of the for-profit sample respondents reporting to the Chairman of the Board or CEO would appear a very positive indicator of the communication function being accorded increasing importance within private sector organizations, at least in this sample. As well, among the 51 CCOs from not-for-profits who responded to this question, about 60% (31) reported to the CEO, thereby showing broad congruence with the private sector CCOs in the sample. However, any such positive indicators need to be tempered by the fact that there remained a significant number of CCOs within the sample who did not appear to have such senior executive reporting access. In terms of the CCOs’ status in relation to other organizational functions, 97 of the 204 for-profit CCOs (48%) in the cross tabulation between Q #8 sit on executive committee and Q #7 I report to (N = 255) indicated that they sat on the highest-level executive / management committee. Interestingly, 34 of 51 CCOs (66%) within the
88 sample of not-for-profit organizations reported that they had a seat on the highest-level management committee - a significantly greater percentage than amongst the private sector CCOs. Of course, there might be a number of explanations for such a discrepancy between the representation of for-profit and not-for-profit CCOs on the highest executive / senior management teams, the most obvious being the general difference in organizational size and geographical reach, and the perhaps less complex senior management structures found in many not-for-profit organizations. However, these issues will be considered further later. Summary Reviewing the evidence derived from the study relating to RQ 1, it was clear from the interview data that there was no single dominant model of communication departmental structure; indeed, there appeared to be a range of alternative structures in place. There also appeared to a considerable amount of hybridization within each model - sometimes even partial integration of one or more models or approaches. Certainly, a CCO’s scope of responsibility (or sphere of operations), be it local / regional, national, continental or global does not influence: the type of functions the communication department established and sustained; the extent to which the communication was integrated; the number of levels of hierarchy in the department; the basis for organizing staff into units; or where the CCO reported. Here following in Figure 4.1 is a summary of the key relationships discussed above, identified from a number of the cross tabulations of different variables. Figure 4.1: RQ 1 Key Relationships Research Questions RQ 1: Are there specific structures /models for communication departments?
Key Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between CCO’s sphere of operation and their involvement in the top disciplines (external communication; media relations; internal communication; web communication; and issues/crisis management). There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and the extent to
Comment Regardless of whether a CCO had local, regional, national, continental or global scope of responsibility, the communication department provided the same basic disciplines.
Regardless of whether the CCO had local, regional, national, continental or global scope of responsibility, there was
89 which the communication department operates on an integrated basis.
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and number of levels of hierarchy in the communication department. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and the basis for organizing staff.
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and where the CCO reported.
as much opportunity that the CCO led a single integrated, centralized department as there was that there were a number of separate, decentralized communication departments or units. Regardless of whether a CCO had local, regional, national, continental or global scope of responsibility, the number of levels of hierarchy did not correspond to a particular scope of operation. Regardless of whether a CCO had local, regional, national, continental or global scope, organizing first by technical communication activities / services was the preferred method followed by organizing by stakeholders and internal clients. Regardless of whether a CCO had local, regional, national, continental or global scope, approximately 55% of for-profit CCOs reported to the Chairman or CEO and 45% reported to a tier two executive or lower. For not-for-profit CCOs, approximately two-thirds reported to the CEO – but again, most not-for-profit CCOs only had local / regional or national scope of responsibilities.
In examining this ‘structural question’ it was also important not to lose sight of the fundamental purpose of structure, namely to facilitate organizing relevant activities so as to enable their effective management, whether they be communication or other functional activities. It should be noted that the data indicate that the CCOs in the sample, regardless of the geographical scope or size of their communication department, try to maintain the following disciplines: external communication; media relations; internal communication; web communication; and issues/crisis management. These are the relevant communication disciplines common to most departments. Moreover, as the data here indicate, and as other RQs examined later reinforce, structure is not an autonomous phenomenon, rather it is the product of human choices and actions. Obviously, the first organization choice is for the CCO to understand how she or he will establish these disciplines in the department. A second choice, common across all communication departments, is to determine the technical activities and services needed to support those disciplines and to determine if they are to be provided by specialists, in a specialized unit. Grouping those specialists with unique skill sets
90 who create, produce and disseminate communication products and activities allows for effective management of production processes. Once done, a third choice for a CCO is to examine how to support each discipline by grouping remaining staff into units configured by particular stakeholder group(s) and / or an internal client(s). Therefore, a CCO’s first choice among organizational variables is to place some staff into one or more technical activity / service positions or group these positions into units. The data suggests that both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations had chosen to organize their communication functions on a number of different bases in this relative order: by technical activities / services; by stakeholders and / or by internal client; by sub-functions and/or by geographical business area of operation. In most cases, the communication department is a combination of these variables, a hybrid. One of the other organizational variables that then influences choice of structural form / model was clearly whether or not the primary communication department was a single integrated department - or run on a more devolved basis. Evidence from the research suggests that integration occurs with either direct or functional reporting to the CCO. Yet, this organizational variable does not appear to be a primary consideration. When the communication departments of an organization were not integrated into a single department, it then led to further questions about the locus of control and what reporting relationships existed to the central organizational headquarters as well as to other parts of the organization in question. It also raised questions about the type of responsibilities any independent communication department might have and the number of employees in these units. The survey did not address these questions directly. However, perhaps the most important factor influencing decisions on communication department structure, particularly in terms of the viable options that might be open to decision makers, was organization and departmental size. In this study, close on 60% of communication departments employed less than 10 people and only around 15% employed more than 50 people. Clearly, where such relatively small numbers are involved, it may not be possible for a CCO to consider the full range of available hierarchical structural models. That means, the CCO must contemplate a department with at least a core set of disciplines (external communication; media
91 relations; internal communication; web communication; and issues/crisis management) and a number of methods of organizing (by activities / services; by stakeholders and/or by internal client; by sub-functions and/or by geographical business area of operation), but with a limited number of levels of hierarchy. Equally, structure is perhaps most important in terms of how far it influences the power that a function has within organization, and how any such power is exercised. Hence, further considerations of such questions as how far the communication function is integrated in a single department, and how individual departments may relate to one another will only assume importance where there are sufficient employees within the function to make such considerations a meaningful option. A fuller picture of these issues and others relating to the structural question will emerge as the data relating to the other key RQs is explored below.
RQ 2: Is There A Relationship Between Communication Department Structure And Organizational Structure? Findings In addressing this second research question, interview questioning focused on indicators of the functional relationship between the communication function and the rest of the organization and on the relevant reporting relationships across the organization. The qualitative and quantitative stages of the research focused on data relating to reporting relationships, structural patterns and configurations and the enabling and constraining factors shaping the way the communication functions have been organized and managed. Qualitative Research Findings The CCOs interviewed from U-form organizations headed communication departments ranging in size from 7 to 580 employees. In M-form organizations, the range was between 5 and 480 and in matrix-based organizations, the range was between 38 and 122. In all three cases, the number of employees at the lower end of
92 the range typically signaled employees based in HQs only. Clearly, where there were a higher number of communication employees, this tended to be associated with the existence of one or more regional communication offices reporting directly or functionally within the organizational structure. Less than half of simple form organizations had regionally based communication employees. Perhaps not surprisingly, organizations with simple form structures had relatively small communication departments that ranged in size from 3 to 9 FTEs and, in fact, only two had regionally based communication employees. The majority of U-form and M-form organizations had communication employees who were regionally based. As might be expected, all matrix form organizations had regionally based communication employees. Again, as one might expect, regional communication departments tended to be found in organizations with somewhat more complex structural forms. The existence of a regional communication office perhaps did reflect the nature and spread of the organization’s operations. This, in turn, may have dictated structural arrangements. In this qualitative sample, the size of the communication departments varied, having no discernible pattern and equally other than with simple form structures, there was no clear link between size and a particular form of department structure. What was perhaps notable was that, in the five organizations that had regional communication departments operating independently of the HQs communication department, the functional structure adopted was essentially a M-form structure. Of course, with any regionally decentralized function, a M-form structural arrangement is more likely to prove the logical choice and is also likely to provide the basis for greater independence from a central communication department. The majority of the CCOs interviewed reported to the organization’s top management. Interestingly, all the 7 not-for-profit CCOs reported to the top executive, but only 13 of 19 for-profit, private sector CCOs did so. Fourteen of the 17 male CCOs did, while 6 of the 9 female CCOs reported to the CEO or equivalent. There was little conclusive evidence to suggest that there was any significant relationship between structure and CCO reporting relationships other than to say that the majority of CCOs interviewed reported in to their organization’s top management.
93 On the other hand, as a predictor of reporting relationships, interviewees emphasized the degree of importance the CEO or organizational head placed on communication. Here interviewees emphasized the importance of having a CEO who “gets it” and who “values communication and leads by example.” Further critical factors mentioned included that the communication department is “close to decision-making,” can “count on the full support of the CEO” and is listened to “most of the time.” Most of the CCOs who expressed these or similar views reported directly to the CEO. Some of those who did not report to the CEO or equivalent, said that “the Office of the (CEO) does not view communication as a strategic process” or “It is the prerogative of the CEO. His vision was to reduce the number of departments and thus direct reports.” A CCO who didn’t report to the CEO had a different perspective: “CEO access and trust are crucial. It’s not so much about reporting lines, it is about having direct access to the CEO.” In organizations that employed a simple form organizational structure, there was no one preferred way to organize a communication department. As one interviewee stated: “I don’t see structure as that important. We are a relatively small group and teamwork is more important.” These CCOs reported a variety of primary models around which the function’s work was organized horizontally: by technical activities / services; by stakeholders, by general functions and communication processes and; by internal client. On the other hand, the majority of communication departments in U-form organizations organized their departments around activities / services as the primary model. Organizing by internal client and by stakeholder followed in turn. For communication departments in M-form organizations, the most popular building block was by client, applying the account executive (AE) model wherein the internal client of a business unit (located at HQs or in the regions) or central staff function were supported by a communication account manager or an account team. One respondent to the online survey explained the AE role this way: “Each staff member is responsible for managing the internal client needs of one department and is accountable for the work, even if they do not necessarily perform the work themselves.” Besides this role supplying communication services, a second respondent described an advisory role for
94 the AE: “My team is involved in all strategic decisions, even those without a direct communications component, because it is essential that we know what the business unit is doing at all levels.” Another talked of other benefits of organizing by client: “Having staff identified to work with specific internal client groups, it allows for a variety of workloads and types of work, a deeper knowledge of the client work products and an ability to build relationships.” While another spoke about the ability to integrate various organizational silos inherent in his company by ensuring that there is an “ongoing exchange between (communication) analysts (account executives) to enable the identification of opportunities for synergy and improvement of corporate image.” A number of respondents described the weaknesses of organizing by client this way: “Internal departments perceive the communications department as a service to their activities and don't understand the strategic role of the department.” That is, the account executive becomes simply an order taker, and some of the orders for communication services originating with the client may not be wise. As a second CCO pointed out, it is up to the communication department to ensure that it operates at the strategic level: “Listen and respect internal clients truly as clients ... know their needs ... decide, plan, do and review on an ongoing basis against their intended strategic objectives … be strategic...not just tactical.” In matrix organizations, the main model that seemed to be employed to organize the communication departments’ activities was by internal client, which was the case in three of the four matrix form organizations. However, perhaps the most significant finding to emerge was the fact that very few of the 26 communication departments employed just one structural model. This was particularly true the larger in size the communication department grew. Most departments had adopted ‘hybrid’ models, albeit with one structure generally more dominant or primary even among hybrids. Thus, in effect, while organizations employed a mix of models, they tended to favor one or other of what can be seen as several ‘base models’, which formed the main or primary building block in the organizing of their department into units. Here four base organizing models emerged– organizing by
95 technical activities / services, by stakeholders, by general sub-functions and processes and by internal client/business line, with one or the other providing the core basis on to which other models might be attached. Thus in U-form organizations, departments were generally organizing around activities / services, while in M-form and matrix organizations the functional structures were generally organized by internal client. Here the research uncovered a number of respondents who commented on the strengths and weaknesses of their current organizational model for their communication department. For example, one respondent, when commenting on a department organized by services, stated: “A skills based organizational structure allows for greater expertise and specialization than does a client-focused or other structure. But, this type of structure is less customer-focused, weaker in strategic planning than a client-based structure and starts to develop internal silos over time. People become too specialized and don't grow professionally.” A CCO from a small communication department also commented on organizing by services: “We are small so when one staff member leaves it affects everyone. Not all work is understood by all people so it is occasionally hard to cover for people when they are away.” On the other hand, a CCO who completed the on-line survey and put more importance on people than structure said: “We are a small department with specific skill sets in each person and those skill sets are what make us an exceptional department.” One CCO had a rather unique method of organizing by stakeholder, based on stakeholder engagement. The approach was described this way: “We have selected our own communication organizational structure, following the concept of how and at what level reputation is being built. We are now organized in a cross-business mode and are focusing more on geographies – so where we engage with our stakeholders – rather than following the line of the business
96 organizations that has led in the past for us to have disconnected communication structures.” The more complex an organization’s structure, the greater likelihood that the ‘account executive model’ was employed by the communication department as its primary, though not sole, basis for organizing its work activities. Although this was the primary structural building block, other units within the communication department were organized by activities / services, by stakeholders and/or by sub-functions. For most of the 26 communication departments, the overall work structure was a hybrid one. Interviewees concurred in various ways: “rigid structures constrain high performance of the communication department” and “all functional areas need to operate across all areas of the business.” At the same time, CCOs spoke about the requirement to be both responsive to corporate, client and regional / local needs and to be accountable to all. One CCO said that when there is a “lack of full integration of functions, accountability is not clearly defined.” Most CCOs claimed that they placed importance on organizational models that were flexible, that were integrated across the business and where there was obvious accountability. It was recognized that such a model is not easy to construct, particularly when the department contains a number of strong elements. It should also be noted that the organizational structure we have described is a horizontal structure for the most part. Employees are grouped into units one, two, three or more to a unit - horizontally across the communication department. The discussion above did not touch on the vertical structure of the communication department – the number of hierarchical levels or the stratification in the department. Vertical structure will be discussed later in this report. Quantitative research findings: As a backdrop to considering the findings relating to this RQ, it is perhaps worth reiterating the characteristics and profile of the research sample of organizations outlined earlier in this findings chapter. In analyzing Q #30 would describe corporate organizational structure as against Q #8 I sit on the highest level management committee (N= 244), of the 196 private sector CCOs who responded to this question, 77 worked in U-form structures (centralized / hierarchical / vertical); 37 in M-form
97 (decentralized / horizontal); 78 in matrix organizations; and 4 in organizations where the structure was deemed to be of a hollow, virtual nature. Of the 48 not-for-profit organizations that responded, 23 worked in U-form (centralized / hierarchical / vertical), 8 in M-form (decentralized / horizontal); and 17 in matrix organizations. Interestingly, while the majority of CCOs worked in U-form and M-form organizations, the majority of them did not sit on the highest-level management committee in their organization. Overall, more for-profit CCOs did not sit on these executive committees than those who did. On the other hand, the majority of CCOs working in matrix and virtual / networked organizations did sit on these top decisionmaking committees. The analysis for non-profit CCOs is entirely different: regardless of the form of organizational structure, the majority of these CCOs sat on the highest-level committee. The other notable sample characteristics worth recapping here relate to the geographic scope the organizations’ operations, and to the size of the organizations. Moreover, when analyzing Q #30 would describe corporate organizational structure as with Q #2 countries operating in (N= 244) in terms of the range of geographic distribution, more than half of the 193 (93) for-profit organizations responding operated in less than ten countries; 27 in 26 – 50 countries; and 36 in 101-150 countries. Amongst the sample of not-for-profit organizations, the range was between the 38 that operated in fewer then ten countries and the seven that operated in 101-150 countries. So, while the majority of organizations operated internationally (in two or more countries), most of these organizations did so in less than 10 countries. When looking at organizational structural forms, it was apparent that there was not a clear relationship between the number of countries an organization operates in and any one form of organizational structure (simple form; U-form; M-form; matrix form; virtual form). In forprofit organizations that operated in less than 10 countries, 54% of U-form, 62% of Mform, 33% of matrix form and 50% of virtual form did so. In for-profit organizations that operated in more than 101 countries, 16% of U-form, 21% of M-form, 19% of matrix form and 0% of virtual form did so. For for-profit organizations, 36 of the 196 respondent organizations operated in over 100 countries. Structurally, these 36 broke down as follows: U-form 13; M-form 8; matrix 15; and virtual / networked 0. For non-
98 profit organizations, the 7 respondent organizations separated as: U-form 2; M-form 2; matrix 3; and virtual / networked 0. In organizations (both for-profits and not-for-profits) operating in more than 100 countries, no significant correlation appeared to emerge between the number of countries where organizations operated and a single dominant organizational structure. Overall, there was not a relationship between organizational reach or geographical spread and the choice of a particular structure for the organization. It seems, then, for for-profit organizations that U-form, M-form and the matrix structure can scale well as the organization grows and operates in a greater number of countries. On the other hand, this same relationship was not found with nonprofit organizations: very few of these organizations operated in more than 10 countries. This is not to say that organizations operating on such a broad international / global scale did not have specific structural arrangements to facilitate the management of their respective communication functions. Perhaps one variable that might have been expected to impact on organizational and communication department structures and the relationship between the two was Q #6 the size of organization (measured in number of employees) and in turn Q #14 the size of the communication function. As was revealed earlier (see earlier Tables 2 & 3), almost 30% of the sample organizations employed less than 1000 people, and almost 60% employed less that 5000 people. However, for the purposes of this study, what is perhaps particularly significant is the finding that typically nearly 60% of communication departments employed less than ten (10) people and in nearly 80% of cases the communication department comprised less than 25 people. Clearly in such cases, particularly with departments of less than ten people, any discussion of ‘functional vertical structure’ may be of very limited relevance, and indeed even with up to 25 staff, it would seem unlikely that anything other than a relatively simple functional structure would be necessary to help organize and control work activities. On the other hand, while these may well be simpler types of structures based on the number of employees and thus the number of hierarchical levels, the structure of communication departments of under 25 employees may be somewhat complicated when considering whether the department organizes its employees by a combination of activities / services, internal clients, stakeholders and general functions. For example, a communication department
99 of under 25 employees may deploy a number of employees to specialize in writing and editing or web site architecture and content management (by services), in support to a business line or the Marketing Department (by internal client), in employee communications or community relations (by stakeholder) and corporate communication or media relations and issues management (by general functions). Certainly, employing such a hybrid approach to organizing work of the department would seem more feasible and relevant in a larger department than in a smaller one. In a larger communication department, it would be possible to employ specialists and then to organize these specialists into a greater number of specialized units, whether devoted to specific services or to internal clients or to external stakeholders or to general functions. Therefore, the control of work could be better managed, with each unit of specialists benefiting from the ability to backfill when someone is on leave, to have employees with advanced expertise and to engage in succession planning. On the other hand, in a smaller sized department of 25 employees or less, managing the work in a hybrid organizational structure may prove more difficult. There might be only one, or perhaps two, employees assigned to any specialized unit, be that unit organized by activity / service, stakeholder, internal client or general function. In a smaller sized communication department, it might be more difficult to manage backfilling and to move employees to other units to provide support in peak periods. Communication departments with less than 25 employees might have to employ more generalists than specialists as well as to engage in considerably more cross-training across specialties. That said, if a communication department of less than 25 employees attempts to be as “full service” as a much larger communication department, the importance of organizational structure might take second seat to the importance of employee capabilities and competencies. But, as noted in RQ1, most departments, regardless of size, attempt to be full service, in that they have a similar scope of primary responsibilities: external communication; internal communication, issues management; media relations; and web communication. Significantly, the study found that in only around six per cent of cases did the communication department number more than 100 people. Although it was not possible to measure accurately whether there was any clear correlation between organization
100 size and communication department size and communication department structures, anecdotally, at least, as might be predicted, the larger organizations tended to house the largest and more sophisticatedly structured communication departments. Moreover, as was discussed previously, there was little evidence of any dominant pattern of communication structures associated with particular sized organizations, rather if there was any pattern, it was of quite diverse, variable departmental structures across the sample of organizations. These larger communication departments had a greater number of hierarchical levels but they also used a hybrid of organizing methods unique to themselves. In exploring various links between the organizational structure and departmental structures, one potentially significant variable examined was Q #8 the CCO was a member of the highest-level decision making body (dominant coalition) in the organization (frequency N=266). Here an almost equal number of CCOs (for-profit and non-profit combined) were a member (135) as were not a member (131). When Q #8 was analyzed by Q #30 overall structural type (cross tabulation N= 244), there were some variations in the extent to which CCOs were accepted as members of the senior management team. Of the 196 for-profit CCOs who responded to this question, 94 sat on the highest-level decision making body and 102 did not. Of the 48 not-for-profit CCOs, 31 sat on the top management team. Therefore, we see that the majority of forprofit CCOs in this sample do not sit on this body while the majority of not-for-profit CCOs do indeed sit on the highest-level management committee. Most notably for forprofit CCOs, it was only those in matrix organizations whose majority reported being members of the senior management decision-making body (43 to 35). In U-form (centralized / vertical) or in M-form (decentralized / horizontal) organizations, the majority of for-profit CCOs were not a member of this body. In all cases, non-profit CCOs who were members of this high level body were in the majority. Of course, it was not possible to determine in any reliable way whether there was any direct causal relationship between structural form and CCOs’ membership of the top management team in their organizations. A number of other possible variable relationships were also examined to try to ascertain whether there were any other significant relationships or influences on
101 organization or communication department structure that might have been overlooked. Here for example, the analysis explored the relationship between Q #30 organizational structure and Q #10 the communication functions for which CCOs in the sample were responsible (N= 244). In this case, while it was possible to identify some descriptive categorization of the variables involved and link these to aspects of structure, there was little evidence of any significant relationship between the type of department structures adopted and these variables. Thus, there did not appear to be any correlation between a specific responsibility or function and a particular form of organizational structure. As noted previously, the functions for which a majority of CCOs had responsibility, such as external communication / public relations, media relations, internal communication, Web based communication and issue / crisis management, were a majority across all forms of organizational structure. The same can be said for functions such as marketing communication, government relations, community relations and research / planning / measurement, for which a third to a half of CCOs had responsibility or such as investor relations for which few CCOs had responsibility. Although we have included a number of these analysis tables in the appendices for completeness sake, they do not appear to show any particularly significant causal relationships that would merit further comment here in terms of understanding the primary drivers behind the particular structural configurations of the communication function within organizations. The analysis then turned to examine the relationship between Q #30 organizational structure and Q #11 integration of communication functions as a single department (N= 244). Matrix (47 of 78) and U-form (47 of 77) structures emerged as the most popular among for-profits with integrated communication functions. But, the same pattern was also found among for-profits that did not have an integrated communication function, with 31 and 30 for-profits having matrix and U-form structures respectively. That is, while the majority of CCOs who worked in organizations with matrix or U-form structures led an integrated department, a good percentage of them did not lead such a department. In terms of not-for-profit organizations, 17 (of 36) organizations with integrated communication functions had U-form structures and 12 had matrix structures. Overall, of non-profit CCOs, 36 of 48 led integrated departments.
102 This was a higher percentage than for-profit CCOs, where only 114 of 196 led integrated departments. It seems then, that the ability to integrate the organization’s communication function into a single department is not dependent on the specific structure, as long as the structure is U-form or matrix. Clearly, it may be difficult and perhaps even illogical for organizations to operate with a single integrated communication department, where the organization’s overall fundamental structure was essentially a M-form or strongly decentralized structure. The final relationship explored in relation to this research question was the potential link between Q #30 organizational structure and Q #21 levels of hierarchy in the communication department (N= 227). Among for-profits, the typical pattern was there to be either two or three quite distinctive levels of responsibility, with an almost equal number of private sector organizations having two (79) or three (81) levels respectively. However, the difference between the two levels was negligible when juxtaposed with organizational structure. Regardless of whether the stratification was two or three levels, there was little difference between them in U-form (29 vs. 35), Mform (16 vs. 15), matrix (29 vs. 30) or virtual / networked (3 vs.1) organizations. In this cross tabulation, only 27 out of a total of 185 for-profit CCOs led communication department with more than three levels of hierarchy. Among the for-profit communication departments with two or three levels of hierarchy, exactly 29 and 30 respectively were in organizations with matrix structures. While 29 two-level communication departments and 35 three-level were in U-form structures. An almost equal number (16 two-level and 15 three-level) were in M-form’s decentralized / horizontal structures. Of the 42 not-for-profit communication departments, 38 had either two or three levels of hierarchy. Among not-for-profits with two levels, 12 were in organizations with U-form structures, 4 were in matrix and 2 were in M-form. Not-for-profits with three levels had a similar pattern even if the variation was not as pronounced with 8 being in U-form, 7 in matrix, and 4 in M-form structures. Summary Reviewing the data collected relating to both organizational and communication department structures, there was relatively little conclusive evidence of a direct
103 relationship between the overall organizational structure and that of the communication department per se, other than perhaps the most obvious link in terms of departmental structures tending to mirror those of the overall organization to which they belonged. Indeed, it would seem highly unlikely and even illogical to expect to find departmental structures that radically departed from those prevailing within the rest of the organization. Figure 4.2: RQ 2 Key Relationships Research Questions RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication function structure and organizational structure?
Key Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research For for-profit organizations, there was evidence of a significant relationship between a U-form structure and an organization operating in less than 10 countries and a matrix structure and an organization operating in over 10 but under 100 countries. Interestingly, this relationship was not apparent in for-profit organizations operating in more than 100 countries. No similar relationship was found for not-forprofit organizations, the majority of which only operated in one country. For for-profit organizations, there was evidence of a significant relationship between the CCO being a member of the highest-level management committee and the CCO working in a matrix form organizational structure. The majority of CCOs in not-for-profit organizations were members of the highest-level management committee, regardless of the form of organizational structure. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the form of organizational structure and the top disciplines a communication department offered (external communication; media relations; internal communication; web communication; and issues/crisis management). There was evidence of a significant relationship between the integration of the communication department as a single department and U-form and Matrix organizational structures.
Comment An organization operating in 10 or less countries can maintain a centralized structure but when operating in over 10, the need seems to be to devolve to a matrix structure to compensate for the coordination of both centralized and decentralized elements.
In U-form (centralized / vertical) or in Mform (decentralized / horizontal) organizations, the majority of for-profit CCOs who worked in these forms of organization were not a member of the highest-level management committee. A dual reporting environment seems to lend itself to having CCOs on the highest-level management committee, perhaps because the nature of that committee changes in a matrix structure. The disciplines offered by a majority of CCOs were offered across all forms of organizational structure. The same can be said for disciplines such as marketing communication, government relations, community relations and research / planning / measurement offered by only a third to a half of CCOs. This wasn’t the case for CCOs who worked in M-form organizational structures. As noted in both the qualitative and quantitative research, the percentage of independent regional-
104
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between organizational structure and the number of levels of hierarchy in the communication department.
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the reporting relationships of the CCO and the organizing of the communication department into units (by activities / services, sub-functions, internal client; stakeholder, etc.)
based communication units or departments that did not report directly or functionally to the CCO was greater in M-form organizations. It may be difficult for organizations to operate with a single integrated communication department where the organization’s overall fundamental structure was strongly decentralized. In over 90% of the sample, there were either two or three levels of hierarchy in the communication department. Two or three level communication departments, in both for-profit and non-profit organizations, were found almost equally across U-form, M-form or matrix form organizational structures. Whether the CCO reported to the CEO or not had no bearing on how the CCO organized the communication department horizontally by different types of units.
The data suggest that CCOs in organizations with matrix structures tend to sit on the highest-level executive committee and lead an integrated department more so than CCOs who work in organizations employing other organizational structures. But, while this is an interesting finding, it does not directly relate to the relationship between organizational and departmental structures overall. In considering this RQ, we also explored some of the ‘elements’ of structure such as Q #30 corporate organizational structure and Q #7 CCO reporting relationships. Here however, there was little evidence of any significant relationship between the form of organizational structure and reporting relationship of the CCO. In fact, regardless of the type of organizational structure, the same percentage of CCOs - approximately 50% - reported to the top person, the Chair or CEO. There was a slight increase for CCOs working in matrix and virtual form organizations, but the difference was not significant. Again, perhaps the most significant finding to emerge from the study with respect to this specific RQ is that, in most cases, it appears that decisions and actions concerned with communication departmental structure tend to mirror those taken for the organization as a whole (i.e. communication functions were not seen to require any specific structural adaption in order to perform effectively). Tangential to this finding,
105 the evidence also points to the fact that questions of which specific functional structure / structural model might be adopted, and the importance generally of structure to the function itself and to the organization appeared to be of relatively limited importance in those organizations (the majority) at the smaller end of the size / scale spectrum, and only showed signs of becoming a significant consideration in larger more complex organizations. RQ 3: What Are The Most Critical Factors Determining Communication Department Structure? Findings In addressing this third research question, interview questioning focused on examining what appeared to be the key indicators that helped to explain why the communication department was organized the way it was, and who had determined the current functional relationship between the communication function and the rest of the organization. The information in the Qualitative Research Findings section below comes from both our interviews with CCOs and from the open-ended questions in the on-line survey. Similarly, with the survey analysis, we focused on indicators that again shed light on what might be the key causal variables influencing communication function structure. Qualitative Research Findings The initial questioning of respondents focused on exploring why the communication department was organized the way it was, and who had determined the current structure. Most CCOs stated that they had been responsible for the decision on the current structural alignment. For the majority of those who made this decision, changes were brought about relatively soon after they had assumed the position of CCO. For the rest, the current structure was the result of changes enacted by the CCO over time as the incumbent in the position. If the CCO was not responsible for the functional structure, then generally the current structure was a reflection of the CEO’s and / or executive team’s direction or simply the CEO’s personal choice.
106 When respondents were asked about which factors contributed to making a communication department structure effective, a range of factors emerged. The most frequently cited being those relating to the ‘leadership competencies and management capabilities’ of those heading and running the department. We identified a second set of factors relating to what might best be described as ‘the culture and working environment of the department’. This included CCOs citing the importance of having the right mix of staff employed, particularly in terms of the mix of specialist or generalist skill sets. A third, and far less frequently cited set of factors related to what might be seen as ‘structural issues’, such as length of chain of command, and the span of control of communication managers. In short, leadership competencies and managerial competencies of the communication department’s executives and managers were found to make up two thirds of the factors cited as key to the success of the communication departments’ performance. CCOs said that their and their management team’s leadership and management competencies were the most important factors in making any structure work. A number of CCOs talked about the changing role of the CCO. For example, one CCO captured the mood this way: “A new class of professional is appearing at the top of organizations, separate from the main 'delivery' function of communication. Positioned to influence and guide leadership without the day-to-day responsibility for managing channels. It could be characterized almost as an internal consultant and sometimes that's where the role may have originated before being made full time.” The factors that were identified as often driving the CCO (or CEO) to make organization changes (including to functional structures and or operating practices) included the following:
Reaction to environmental factors external to the organization (political; social; regulatory; market; etc.) affecting the type and nature of business we are in and thus the organization’s financial situation;
Internal organizational transformation, particularly changes in business strategy and/or culture (particularly those leading to major upsizing or downsizing in the organization);
107
The need to have the communication department more closely mirror the organization’s structure and its businesses; and
Finally, the need to improve staff capabilities and competencies. Of course, these factors were by no means mutually exclusive and might well
manifest themselves in combination and with different degrees of intensity. Equally, the significance of different factors might well change over time and in different contexts. When asked what were the attributes and best practices associated with highperforming communication departments, one respondent captured the views articulated by many others: “A culture of change is one of the fundamental factors.” Here it was emphasized that change in the organization and in the situation the company works in are the two factors that appeared to have a great influence on the communication department structure. CCOs said that the communication department must be ready and willing to easily adapt to externally driven change, including structurally. That is, CCOs seemed to suggest that their current structural model was the right one for today’s situation but that they recognized that it might not be for tomorrow’s changed situation. If the organization changed structurally, for example by adding or subtracting business units or regions, the communication department itself must change organizationally. In seeking to tease out what might be seen as the key factors influencing the choice of department structure, we addressed this question in part indirectly through examining what CCOs saw as the strengths and weaknesses of the current structure of the communication department they led. It was perhaps significant that most respondents discussed the strengths and weaknesses of their department structure in terms of how the department fitted within the overarching structure of their own organization. Indeed, the organizational proximity to internal clients (to provide direct support in alignment with client priorities) was the most frequently cited structural strength. That is, the greatest organizational strength was that they were structured in a manner that provided for close working relationships with the senior leaders of internal business and functional units. A second key source of strength identified was the existence of organizational alignment of all communication departments and units within their organization, fostering teamwork and the flexibility to shift focus and move
108 resources as needed across communication functions. This corresponds to what we identified with earlier RQs: an integrated communication department. A third key strength cited was a standardization of all internal processes for all communication functions, providing management and performance consistency across the organization and in particular clear authorities and accountabilities. Fourth, CCOs believed that an important strength of their current organizational structure was the presence of a strong team in all communication functions - that staff competency, expertise and professionalism were what made the structure work. For example, according to one interviewee, the effectiveness of the organizational structure was determined by having the “specialized skills required for each function.” On the other hand, when asked what they perceived to be the weaknesses in their current organizational structural approach / model (which by implication might constitute pressures for change), CCOs identified a series of potential and actual weaknesses including:
A rigid allocation of FTEs among various communication departments or units leading to, among other consequences, the inability to share resources across the organizational structure to cover workload peaks and valleys;
A lack of alignment with communication departments or units in regional operations located outside of HQs leading to turf issues, working in silos, low levels of collaboration and inconsistent product and message quality and delivery;
A lack of resources, where the department is, in effect, too small to make a significant difference;
A lack of support / confidence / credibility with executives leaders - leaders who don’t understand the structure and how and why units are organized and / or see the structure as a barrier to building working relationships;
A structure that does not support succession and career planning (such as one that lacks junior positions, development positions and generalist positions). In analyzing the data gathered and reported here, it was recognized that much of
the data only provided an indirect or partial answer to RQ3. CCOs talked about the factors that helped determine whether the function operated effectively, some of which were clearly structural in nature - i.e. proximity to internal clients, organizational
109 alignment, the span of control and the length of the chain of command - but much of the emphasis was on the competencies of the leadership and management skills of the senior executives leading the department as well as the culture within the department. These latter points (standardization of processes; team competencies; resource levels; allocation of FTEs; and succession and career planning) referred more to the effectiveness of operation of the department, rather than to how the particular organization of the department had come about. One other theme that needs to be emphasized was the acknowledgement that structure should be recognized as the product of senior management decisions and choices (as a response to environmental factors and internal organization transformation) and did not come about autonomously. Quantitative Research Findings Reviewing the data gathered from the survey of CCOs, again it became apparent that responses tended to offer only a partial answer the RQ3, which in some ways might be taken to imply that respondents themselves were unclear about what are the most critical factors determining the communication function’s structure. Indeed, one might interpret the emphasis respondents placed on examining the relative strengths and weaknesses of the people employed in the communication function and on factors such as the ‘culture’ within the department as indicative of a tendency to treat ‘structure’ as a ‘given’ rather than perhaps as a changeable variable. Or, if it was viewed as a changeable variable, the CCO saw structural change as incremental – within a limited set of organizational options. One of the issues that emerged from analysis of the survey data that could be related to RQ3 was the relationship between Q #31 how employees in the communication department were organized and whether the communication function in the organization was Q #11 integrated as a single department (N= 244) under the CCO. Here we also sought to analyze whether there was any specific links between the underlying basis on which the department was organized and the extent to which the function as a whole was integrated. No dominant model emerged in our analysis. The most popular basis for organizing the communication department appeared to be ‘by communication activities and services’ (135 of 244 responses), but only around 60
110 percent of departments organized on this basis claimed to be fully integrated. Obviously, for the non-integrated 40%, there was more than one communication department in the organization and that these other communication departments (possibly for marketing communications, internal communications or investor relations) must also organize in whole or part ‘by communication activities and services’. Communication departments, organized on other bases such as by ‘stakeholder groups’ or by ‘internal client’, were integrated slightly less frequently, generally in about 50 per cent of cases. Other variable relationships were also examined to identify any notable influences on communication function structure. For example, perhaps the most obvious variable (N=248) considered was the relationship between Q #14 department size and Q #31 the basis on which the department was organized. No relationship was found. As noted earlier, the majority of communication departments appeared to employ less than ten (10) staff and certainly less than twenty-five (25) staff, which would appear to largely negate the significance of any discussion of decisions about the hierarchical nature of the structure. Certainly, a communication department of ten or less would probably suggest two levels of hierarchy at most, with a department of 10-25 having two or three (or possibly in a few cases four levels) of hierarchy. With three levels of stratification, there could be between two and perhaps up to ten organizational units in the department and most of these small units could be organized on different bases. A smaller number of units might suggest the deployment of generalists, with a larger number of units pointing to specialization – with each unit having one or perhaps two specialists. Perhaps the most significant factor to examine relating to RQ3, concerns the way in which the department structure is determined, and who is normally responsible for such decisions. Here the survey findings confirmed the interview data in that the structure of the communication departments was in the vast majority of cases determined through a deliberative process (Q #24). Our analysis of responses that explored whether Q #31 the basis of the organization of the communication department (i.e. by activities / services, stakeholders or internal clients, etc) affected the way in which the Q #24 functional structure was determined (N= 245) showed very little difference. In all cases, the majority of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that the
111 need to create a particular unit or units (based on activities / services, stakeholders, internal clients, etc.) stemmed from a deliberate process and discussion. That is, a particular organization model in current use did not necessarily influence the deliberations about a new model. In short, irrespective of how the function was organized, the process of arriving at the structure followed more or less the same deliberate process involving the CCO and other senior managers within the function, who might then report to and seek approval from the organization’s CEO / senior management team. Similarly, when asked whether the communication department structure had evolved over a long period of time to its current form (Q #25), the general response was to agree that this was normally the case. Again, it seemed to make very little difference how the function was organized (Q #31); the process was generally recognized as an evolutionary one. In short, after analyzing Q #31 against Q #25 (N= 245), as suggested earlier, the communication department structure must be adaptive and thus, for the most part, it tends to evolve incrementally. We asked here if the structure had evolved without much strategic deliberation (Q #25). Respondents, by a wide margin, stated that this was not the case, particularly when the department was organized by stakeholders – and thus supported what they had said previously about a conscious, deliberative process. The focus of the analysis now switched to examine the relationships between various variables and factors that might have had the greatest influence on the communication department’s current structure. The top three (of seven choices) (Q #29; N= 278) that our CCOs selected as influencing the current department’s structure were: size and or growth of the organization (101); organizational leadership choice (99); and reflection of the corporate / organizational structure (67). Of course, logically, these three factors would be of most immediate relevance in communication functions that were integrated into a single department. An integrated department, regardless of its size, would be influenced by an increase in size of the organization, changes in organizational structure and desires by the CEO and / or executive team for a particular structure, particularly if they have strong opinions about reporting lines. On the other hand, an organization with non-integrated communication
112 departments (one or more independent communication departments not reporting to the CCO and reporting separately to the CEO and/or other executive team members) might be less affected by organizational growth, executive structural choice or reflecting organizational structure because it may already reflect more of these factors. However, perhaps the most pertinent message emerging from the CCOs responses was the overriding importance of organizational leadership choice as a key determinant of communication department structure. It signifies the importance of the nature of the decision-making process (and the influences on it) as well as the competence of those executives charged with leading such decision-making within the department / organization. What was impossible to determine fully was whether ‘organizational leadership choice’ reflected only the choice of reporting lines (to the CEO or not to the CEO) or whether it reflected a deeper involvement such as with the determination of the number of managers under the CCO, the types of activities and services to be provided by the department and their organization or whether the department was to support internal clients with direct account executive support. When CCOs were asked whether the structure of their communication departments was reviewed periodically (Q #26; N= 278) and revised to suit current conditions, most CCOs agreed (65.8% agreed or strongly agreed) that this was the case, irrespective of how the function was organized. This is in line with the findings above, that the structure adapts and evolves continually. And when asked about when the last major restructuring of their departments took place (Q #27; N= 278), there was a reasonable even distribution of responses between less than a year ago (39.9%) and 1-3 years ago (34.6%), followed by 3-5 years ago (16.0%) and more than 5 years ago (9.5%). Perhaps the most significant finding here was the relatively high percentage of departments that were said to have experienced a major restructuring over the past year or so. This finding may well reflect the relatively turbulent economic conditions over the past few years, including the re-sizing of some organizations. Returning to examine the question (Q #28) of what specific factor(s) might have prompted the last major restructuring of the organization’s communication department, some interesting responses emerged. Among the first group of 101 CCOs (size and / or growth of the organization), 46 chose ‘major growth in the organization’ as the factor
113 that prompted the last major restructuring. The same group of CCOs selected ‘a new CEO’ as their second choice (18) and ‘a new CCO / head of communication’ (16) as their third choice. Within the other two categories (organizational leadership choice and reflection of the corporate / organizational structure) a very similar pattern of responses emerged, albeit with minor changes in the order of priority amongst the top three choices of factors that prompted the last major restructuring of the department. Summary Reviewing the evidence collected relating to RQ3, the first key finding to emerge was that communication departmental structure across all types of organizations is the product of human endeavor and a deliberate decision-making process, involving what might be quite varied decision making structures and processes across the for-profit and not-for-profit ‘landscape.’ One obvious fact that emerged is that both the CCO and the CEO either initiate or are involved in these deliberations. This is particularly true when one or the other or both are newly hired. The findings point to communication departments that adapt and evolve structurally, holding reviews and reorganizations on a regular basis. They adapt to the changing size of the organization and to changes in organizational structures resulting from changes in organizational size. They evolve to ensure that they remain in ‘close proximity’ to their internal clients. Thus, they ‘reflect’ or ‘mirror’ the structure of the organization itself. Figure 4.3: RQ 3 Key Relationships Research Questions RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication function structure?
Key Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between how the communication department was organized and whether it was integrated as a single department.
Comment The most popular basis for organizing the communication department was by communication activities and services but only around 60% of departments organized on this basis claimed to be fully integrated. Those departments, organized on other bases such as the second choices of by stakeholder groups or by internal client, were integrated slightly less frequently, generally in about 50 per cent of
114
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the size of the communication department and how the department was organized. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between how the communication department was organized and the way in which the department’s organization was determined. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between how the communication department was organized and whether the structure of the department was reviewed periodically.
cases. This is not considered a significant difference. Regardless of size, communication departments were hybrids, organizing first by communication activities and services, then by stakeholder groups and internal client, and then by the remaining means if required. Irrespective of how the department was currently organized, the process of arriving at new structure followed the same deliberate process involving the CCO and other senior managers within the function. The majority of the CCOs agreed that their department’s structure was reviewed regularly (typically between 1 and 3 years), irrespective of how the department was organized primarily.
For this RQ, department size did not emerge as a key consideration determining the relevance of structural choices for the communication function. Interestingly, where the department size meant that structure had very little impact on department effectiveness, the focus shifted to the ‘people dimension’ – to the importance of CCO and management team leadership and to ensuring that those working in the communication function possessed the necessary competencies and skills to deliver effective functional outcomes. Where structure does assume importance, the study suggested communication departments tend to organize / structure themselves around either communication activities / services, stakeholder groups or by internal client needs, or perhaps a combination of these variables. However, structures are not immutable and the study suggests albeit cautiously, that if there is a typical pattern emerging it appears to be one in which a periodic review and possible consequential change in functional structure maybe occurring over a one to three year period. Perhaps the final point worth re-emphasizing in relation to RQ3 is that much of the evidence gathered tended to only address the research question indirectly, offering only a partial answer to what might be the most critical factors determining communication function structure. However, the one factor did emerge powerfully from the study was the importance of leadership by the CCO, particularly where
115 organizations have been faced with responding to either internal and / or external change, which in some cases might require a significant change to the organization’s and communication department’s structure. Certainly, the role of the CCO in identifying and reacting swiftly and determinedly to either externally driven or internally driven change is a key factor. Here there was a broadly recognized need to keep the communication department structurally aligned with the structure of the organization as a whole and with that of individual client groups. A universally effective structure seemed to be one that was constantly adapting.
RQ 4: Is There A Link Between The Structure Of The Communication Department And Organizational Efficacy? Findings It was recognized that establishing any definitive answer to this research question was always likely to prove challenging. However, in seeking to address this RQ, the research explored indicators of where CCOs might have access to their respective organizations’ senior management team and indicators of their engagement with senior management on wider policy issues. The research looked for indications of how far communication department structures may have facilitated or inhibited such engagement. Indirectly, we explored how far structure might facilitate or inhibit communication function performance and hence the ability of the function to contribute effectively to organizational success. Qualitative Research Findings The preceding sections of the analysis revealed that 19 of the 24 HQs CCOs we interviewed reported to the CEO or top authority. Twenty (20) of these 24 HQs CCOs had a seat on the top executive management committee, while the remainder did not. The CCOs, who reported directly to the most senior executive, also sat on the highestlevel executive management committee. Nineteen (15) of the 24 headquarters based interviewees also managed a single, integrated communication department. Twenty (20) of the 26 organizations had regionally based communications operations and in 15
116 of the 20 cases (or approximately three quarters of the cases), regional communication operations reported directly (11) or functionally (4) to the HQs communication department. Earlier analysis had also shown that CCOs recognized three key factors in determining effective communication department structures:
Proximity to internal clients to foster a close and strong working relationship;
The organizational alignment of all communication functions; and
The standardization of management and administrative processes. It also became clear that the more complex the organizational structure, the more
the CCO tends to organize by internal client as the main building block when developing a structure for the communication department. Most CCOs saw a trend toward centralization or at least integration of communication functions in other organizations. Of course, this viewpoint may be coloured by the expressed desire of most CCOs interviewed to move towards greater integration within their own organizations. However, the majority of interviewees also acknowledged that ‘structure’ is just one of the important variables that contribute to organizational success. Here CCOs were asked about the relative importance of organizational structure to their department's success, and asked to compare its importance to other factors such as the effectiveness of the corporate strategy, the resources and the capacity at their disposal or the competencies of their staff. Perhaps it was only to be expected that interviewees’ opinions were split about the relative importance of structure vis-à-vis other variables. For example, one interviewee argued strongly about the importance of an integrated, client facing structure: “We need the AE structure to overcome a lack of integrated information arising from a lack of management integration resulting in a corporate structure that works in silos. There is no strategic plan or corporate scorecard for the organization as yet. Communication does the integration itself.” Another interviewee captured the views of a number of others when commenting on the question of how the structure of the department might help the communication department be a high performing one:
117 “You can be more professional and quicker with the right organizational structure.” On the other hand, a number of interviewees recognized the importance of some additional factors: “structure alone is not the most important thing;” “it is about having the best people;” “the best structure will always fail if your people are not at the level your company needs and deserves;” “teamwork is more important;” “a good corporate strategy and planning are most important.” In short, the CCOs we interviewed broadly agreed that structure is important, but that structure alone was not likely to guarantee a strong performing communication function. Nevertheless, the CCOs interviewed agreed that the ‘right’ communication department structure could have a positive impact on department performance. Of course, what constitutes the ‘right department structure’ might vary from organization to organization depending on the industry, prevailing market conditions, stage in the organization’s development, geographic scope of the business, etc. However, while acknowledging such potential variability, some more general indicators of what might constitute characteristics of effective departmental structure did emerge in term of structures that facilitate:
A more efficient and flexible distribution of resources;
A better ability to support corporate functions and business lines;
The maintenance of high-level communication competencies through regular information exchanges, coordinated training, the sharing of best practices and common hiring standards;
A clear control over communication roles, responsibilities and accountabilities;
The standardization of management and professional practices; and
The ability to overcome a corporate organizational structure that is in itself not integrated, one that works in silos. Extending this argument, CCOs suggested that by helping to improve
departmental performance, structure might then, in turn, contribute to improved organizational efficacy. Certainly, interviewees agreed that the ‘right structure’ could improve departmental performance and, in turn, organizational efficacy. But, interviewees also maintained that communication could only contribute to organizational
118 efficacy if allowed to operate at the strategic level - i.e. if communication reports in at the senior management level and is taken seriously by senior management. As one interviewee poignantly noted: “Corporate communication at his organization is ‘a work in progress’ that has not been elevated to a strategic function.” Another CCO stated that: “I was hired for my ability to strategize but I had to prove over my first six months in the company that I could contribute … and now my strategic thinking is seen as a value add in this organization.” A number of CCOs commented on the significance of having the appropriate size of department and resources to be able to operate strategically and contribute to organizational efficacy. Recent bouts of downsizing it was suggested had affected the ability of some departments to provide the right balance of strategic and tactical services. One CCO stated that downsizing impacted his communication department to the extent that: “We now have a lack of communication consulting time / resources to devote to internal clients and executive leaders. We had to abandon our internal business partner-consulting model (AE model). Now we are more tactical, less strategic and more short-term strategy focused and less long-term.” This comment may suggest that in times of downsizing, communication departments, particularly those smaller sized, might do away with specialists or units of specialists organized by internal client. On the other hand, they would continue to support units organized by technical activities / services, since these units produce basic tactical services. It is the advice and strategic thinking – provided by account executive specialists organized by internal client – that might be the first to go when cuts have to be made.
119 Quantitative Research Findings The first relationship examined in responding to this research question was that between Q #30 the structure of the organization and Q #7 the CCOs’ reporting relationship. The rationale for studying this relationship (N=236) is that only when the CCO reports directly to the CEO or to the senior management team responsible for decision-making, is it likely that organizational strategies will be influenced by communication and relationship building priorities. Having a direct reporting relationship with the CEO is one indicator of the influence that the CCO may wield in organizational setting, but, arguably, a more powerful indictor of communication engagement in organizational decision-making is whether the CCO actually sits on the highest decision-making body of the organization (dominant coalition). In the latter case, the CCO has a much greater opportunity to make inputs into the collective organizational decision-making process. As was highlighted earlier, approximately 55 per cent of all CCOs working in for-profit organizations reported to the CEO (or most senior executive) and / or the Chairman of the Board in their organization, and an even higher 65 per cent of CCOs in not-for-profit organizations claimed to report directly to their CEOs. Moreover, the earlier analysis also confirmed similar, though slightly lower, figures for the percentages of CCOs in forprofit and not-for-profit organizations who had a seat at the senior management / executive committee within their respective organizations. Interestingly, for for-profit CCOs, 52% who reported to the most senior executive worked in a centralized organization, with 50% in a decentralized, 58% in a matrixed and 75% in a hollow, virtual organization. The percentages for not-for-profit CCOs were 63%, 75%, 58% and 50%. Drawing on the cross tabulation analysis, Q #30 the structure of the organization and Q #8 I sit on the highest-level executive or management committee (N=244), an interesting picture is painted. Here of the 196 for-profits who responded to this question, 94 CCOs (47%) sat on the highest-level management body. Of these, 43 worked in organizations that had matrix structures (55%), 32 in U-form (41%), 16 in Mform structures (43%) and 3 in virtual (75%). Clearly, a CCO working in a matrix or virtual organizational environment had a better chance of being part of the highest-level
120 executive committee than did a CCO working in a U or M-form organizational structure. On the other hand, the existence of such structures per se does not necessarily explain or determine the extent to which the CCOs in question have genuine representation and potential influence within the strategy-making / policy-making processes within organizations, since the percentage differences between those who sit on these committees and those who don’t are not extremely large. A similar position pertained among the CCOs in not-for-profits, where of the 31 organizations in the sample whose CCOs sat on the highest decision-making body, 17 worked in U-form structured organizations, 7 in matrix and 5 in M-form - continuing the trend previously seen among not-for-profits where centralized structures dominated. Of course, having both access and representation on the senior management team might not necessarily also equate to the communication manager’s input being genuinely valued by the rest of the senior management team. Here, as a number of interviewees pointed out, whether the communication function had a genuine influence on decision making at executive management level would normally depend to large degree on the prevailing ‘worldviews’ amongst the senior management team about the importance of communication, as well as the credibility of the CCO to be taken seriously amongst her / his peers (perhaps those leadership and management capabilities as discussed in RQ3), rather than anything necessarily to do with the way the organization or communication department is structured. When we asked directly about whether their input to senior management was considered and valued during the strategy making process, we analyzed the cross tabulation of Q #30 the structure of the organization and Q #9 my inputs are valued and taken into account when organizational decisions are made (N= 210). Perhaps not surprisingly, the vast majority of for-profit CCOs (137 out of the 165 who responded or approximately 83%) either agreed or strongly agreed that their input was given due value and was taken into consideration when organizational strategies were set. Of these, 62 worked in matrix structured organizations, 46 in U-form and 25 in M-form and 4 in hollow / virtual structural forms. A similar pattern was found within not-for-profits, with 40 of the 45 CCOs in the sample agreeing or strongly agreeing that their CCOs’ inputs influenced organizational decisions. Among this group, those working in U-form
121 (20 of the 23 total respondents) and matrix (12 of the 13 total respondents) structured organizations tended to predominate. In analyzing the responses to this question, there was a continued emphasis on matrix and U-form structures, but this may be more to do with the size, history and traditions within those industries / organizations than necessarily with any relationship between whether the communication function and its CCO’s views were valued within senior management decision-making circles and the choice of structural model for the organization. Or, as we saw in previous RQs, matrix form structures tend to be more hospitable to the CCO and to the communication department. They seem to allow for the CCO’s input to be heard as described above and as we noted earlier, they seem to allow for greater communication function integration and they seem to allow for the CCO to sit on the highest level executive committee. What’s interesting then is that a much greater percentage of CCOs reported that their inputs were valued and taken into account when organizational decisions were made than the percentage of these same CCOs who reported to the CEO or top leader in the organization or the percentage that said that they sit on the organization’s highest-level decision-making body. Is it that CCOs do not need to report to the top or sit on the supreme decision-making committee for their voices to be heard? Or, is it that CCOs’ input into individual executives’ decisions was valued and taken into account, since only approximately a half of them had access to a collective decision-making body? Thus, while there were some encouraging results about the extent of CCOs active engagement in senior management decision-making, there was insufficient evidence to comment definitively on what, if any, role organizational or communication department structure might play in enabling this situation, other than to say that no causal relationship could be established between structure and the CCO being able to input into senior management decision-making. Another facet of efficacy analyzed was whether the organization’s structure was able to facilitate the communication department in its supportive role to the organization (Q #30 the structure of the organization and Q #32 the current structure of my department facilitates my department to support the organization (N= 241). Of the 194
122 for profit CCOs who responded to this question, 162 strongly agreed or agreed that the current structure of their communication department facilitated their department’s role in supporting their corporation. Of these, 69 were employed in matrix form structures, 59 in U-form, and 30 in M-form structures. Amongst the 47 not-for-profit organizations that responded to the question, 33 strongly agreed or agreed with this proposition. U-form and matrix form organizations tended to predominate amongst positive respondents. Again no definitive explanatory pattern or relationship with functional structure could be discerned. Summary Reviewing the evidence collected relating to RQ4, the outcome is somewhat ambiguous on the question of whether a link can be identified between communication department structure and organizational efficacy. On one hand, there seemed to be a number of indicators that suggest that CCOs have been increasingly successful in gaining access to and representation on the senior management team in a broad cross section of organizations. In addition, the vast majority say that they able to provide valued input into senior management decision-making. At the least then, it appears that senior executives are listening to CCOs. On the other hand, there seems limited evidence to suggest that the particular structural configuration of the communication department, or its position within the overall organization structure, has a significant impact on the extent and significance of that contribution. Figure 4.4: RQ 4 Key Relationships Research Questions RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy?
Key Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO reported to the most senior executive.
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO sat on the highest-
Comment Approximately 55% of CCOs working in for-profit organizations and 65% of not-for-profit CCOs report to the most senior executive. Although there were slight variations, there isn’t much difference if the CCO works in a centralized, decentralized, matrix or virtual organization. These difference in structures does not necessarily explain or determine if the CCO has representation and potential influence within the strategy
123 level executive committee. On the other hand, evidence suggests that CCOs in matrix or virtual form, for-profit organizations had a greater chance to be on such a committee, as did CCOs working in U-form or virtual form, not-forprofit organizations. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO’s inputs are valued and taken into account when organizational decisions are made. But, again, evidence suggests that matrix form structures, followed by U-form, may tend to be more hospitable to the CCO. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the current structure of the communication department facilitates departmental support of the organization. Again, evidence suggests that matrix form structures, followed by U-form, may tend to be more hospitable to the CCO.
making / policy-making processes within an organization. The percentage differences between those who sit on these committees and those who don’t are not extremely large. There was a continued emphasis on first matrix and then U-form structures, since they seem to allow for greater communication function integration and they seem to allow for the CCO to sit on the highestlevel executive committee. U-form and matrix form organizations tended to predominate amongst positive respondents.
The consensus view seems to be that communication department structure is only one of a number of important variables that contribute to departmental and organizational success and efficacy. Thus, even where it is possible to demonstrate that the communication function has made, and is perhaps continuing to make, a significant contribution to organizational success, there seems little evidence, at least based on this study, to suggest that functional structure may facilitate or inhibit in any significant way any such contribution to organizational efficacy. Regardless of the structure in place in the communication department or in the organization as a whole, the vast majority of CCOs were in agreement that the current structure for their department makes it easier for the department to support the organization’s endeavours. That said, if, as has been indicated, CCOs are being listened to, to a greater extent, and their views are being taken seriously, then one might assume that had functional structures been an issue in militating against such effective input, then CCOs may have been able to effect whatever structural changes might have been required to better facilitate their contribution to senior management thinking and decision making. While perhaps somewhat speculative, such an inference
124 does fit with our earlier findings about the regularity of review and change to communication department structures where deemed necessary. RQ 5: Does The Structure Of Communication Departments Remain Constant Across Different Geographic Regions? Findings The intention with this research question was to explore whether those organizations that were operating on an international basis needed to change or adapt their departmental structures to reflect differences in the operating environment in individual countries / continental regions. We were also interested in examining the aspects of structure that most needed modification when operating across country / continental basis. Although relatively few not-for-profits may operate on an international or global scale, nevertheless the study sought to ascertain how those who did operate internationally structured their communication function to meet this challenge. Qualitative Research Findings As noted earlier, 20 of the 26 CCOs we interviewed worked in organizations where communication departments were located outside of the organization’s HQ. These ‘regional’ communication operations had responsibility for region-specific, country-specific or continental-specific communication. In terms of reporting relationships, 11 of these regional communication departments reported directly to the CCO, 4 reported directly to a regional executive but functionally to the CCO and the remaining 5 did not report either directly or functionally to the HQs CCO. Functional reporting was described by one CCO as: “There are dotted lines to me because I have functional accountability and therefore provide leadership to all the communicators in the field of communication.” For most of the CCOs, a direct reporting arrangement was seen as necessary to ensure that the CCO had the local information needed to make informed decisions about communication policies and issues. Not surprisingly, regional communication operations were found more often in M-form and matrix form organizations, structural
125 forms that were more decentralized, with the five independent departments found in Mform organizations. The organization of regionally based communication employees occurred in a variety of ways. In some cases, a single employee constituted a regional communication office. In other cases, it was a team of employees. In still others, the region was a hub, with various centres in a given region each having a team of communication employees. In most cases, these organizational arrangements seemed to remain constant for all the organization’s regions, notably when all regions were similar in size. However, where regions differed significantly in size, then the organizational structure for the communication units also tended to vary to reflect the greater challenge faced in managing that unit. The evidence gathered from interviewees revealed four ways in which communication strategy may be formulated in organizations with regional communication operations: 1.
A single, global communication strategy is set centrally, solely by the HQs communication department;
2.
The HQs communication department and the regional communication units together set a single strategy, jointly;
3.
There are two strategies developed: a joint, global strategy set by the HQs communication department and the regional units; as well as a separate but complimentary local strategy, localized just for a specific region; or
4.
Each region sets its own independent, local communication strategy without influence from a central, corporate strategy. In all four cases, the region will implement the chosen strategy, either in
conjunction with HQs or on its own. Where there is a single, global strategy – be it set by HQs solely or be it set jointly by HQs and the region, local implementation may or may not include the adaptation of the strategy to meet local conditions. As one interviewee stated: “Communication strategy is devised at the headquarters in (x) and locally implemented with needed modifications in each country. This we call the localization of the strategy in each country.”
126
Another CCO explained the ‘localization’ of strategy in her communication department, as follows: “I set the strategy for international communication departments with the heads of media and public relations and internal communication here at HQs. This strategy is then localized. To ensure the intent of the global strategy is localized appropriately, we discuss the strategy within a global communicators meeting that’s held every two years.” Finally, the CCOs in the 20 organizations with regional communication operations were asked about how they developed their communication strategy. In 8 cases, the HQs communication department was said to set a single, global communication strategy, in 2 cases a single global strategy was set jointly, in 5 cases there was both a joint global strategy as well as a separate region-specific complimentary ‘localized’ strategy and in 5 cases the region set its own separate local strategy (these were the 5 independent regional communication departments). Where strategy was developed centrally or where it was set jointly, the regional communication function tended to report directly to HQs or have a strong functional reporting line. Otherwise, where there is both a joint and a locally set strategy, the relationship was more functional, for as one CCO said: “Our matrix organization leaves room for extensive regional adaptation of the communication strategy and tone.” Where there is just a local strategy, the reporting was typically functional or, more probably, there was no direct reporting arrangement. The greatest decentralization occurred in M-form organizations. Quantitative Research Findings In order to address this RQ effectively, we were able to draw on data gathered through the involvement of our continentally based team of researchers located around the world in constructing the research sample. This geographic diversity also allowed our team to bring a fully international perspective to the analysis.
127 In assessing this RQ, several variables were examined. Initially, we revisited the sample profile data examined at the beginning of the chapter, which revealed that around 30 per cent of communication departments in the sample were found to be operating on an international / global basis (Q #4). When examining Q #4 my responsibilities include communication at the (international; continental; national; local) level with Q #6 the size profile of those organizations (N= 272), as perhaps might be expected, the majority of the 72 whose responsibilities were at the international / global levels of the 216 for-profit communication departments in the sample were in larger sized organizations. Over 66% of these for-profit organizations, where the communication department operated on a global scale, employed over 5,000 employees, with 31% having over 25,000 employees. Interestingly, as the communication department’s scope shrunk geographically, so did the relative size of the organization. Over 63% of the for-profit organizations, where the communication department operated on a continental scale, employed over 5,000 employees, with 33% having over 25,000 employees. Next, over 38% of the for-profit organizations, where the communication department operated on a national scale, employed over 5,000 employees, with 28% having over 25,000 employees. Finally, over 38% of these forprofit organizations, where the communication department operated on a local / regional scale, employed over 5,000 employees, with 26% having over 25,000 employees. Looking at this a different way, only 33% of for-profit organizations where the communication department operated globally had less than 5,000 employees. Compare this to communication departments that operated continentally at 37%, nationally at 61% and locally / regionally at 61% and the observation can be made that, typically, size of the organization correlates into a communication department with a broader geographical scope of operations. But, while there appeared to be some similarity in the relative size of these forprofit organizations and the scope of the communication department, the evidence did not allow any conclusive view about how communication was organized and handled in these for-profit organizations. That is, sheer size alone did not necessarily correlate with any one method of organizing functional organization, such as by activity / service or by stakeholder or by internal client.
128 In the case of the not-for-profit organizations, the vast majority of communication departments operated on a national or regional basis and employed in the main less than 5000 people. In fact, 75 percent of these organizations employed less than 1000 people. Hence, for the few that did operate internationally, it was impossible to offer any meaningful comment about international communication structures in the context of the not-for-profit sector. The analysis next focused on exploring the juxtaposition between Q #7 the CCO’s reporting relationship with Q #4 the CCO’s sphere of responsibility (N=266). Although this relationship only indirectly addressed this specific RQ, as was revealed earlier in the reporting of the data from previous RQs, having the CCO report directly to the CEO or to the Chairman was by far the most common practice among the for-profit organizations in this sample (103 and 13 of 214 responses respectively). Linking these CCOs with analysis of their respective spheres of operation, revealed that 37 (31 and 6) of these for-profit CCOs oversaw communication at the global level for their corporation, 17 (14 and 3) at the continental level, 48 (44 and 4) at the national level, and 14 (14 and 0) at the local / regional levels. On the surface at least, the evidence might seem to suggest that there may be a reasonably consistent pattern of CEO reporting across global or international corporations. However, this pattern of CEO reporting does not appear to be only a characteristic of global / international for-profits, but is found in place across all sectors including not-for-profits. That is, a CCO may or may not report to a CEO or Chairman, but in either case, the reporting arrangement does not seem to be determined by whether the CCO is in charge of international, continental, national or local / regional communication operations. We should note that of the 214 for-profit CCO responses, only 17 indicated that they reported to the head of the marketing department. No non-profit CCOs reported to a marketing department. The wording of our question asked if they reported to the Chief Marketing Officer: it may be that some CCOs do report to a lower level marketing manager. But, even if a few did, the relatively small number of heads of communication who report to a marketing head is telling. Given the literature on integrated communication or integrated marketing communication and the decades long discussion about communication reporting through marketing, it is noteworthy that so
129 few CCOs in this sample, from around the world, actually report into a marketing department head. As we discussed earlier, approximately two-thirds (Q #2: 186 of 278) of our sample organizations operate in more than one country. These organizations might operate in two countries, continentally or globally. In all three of these situations, they operate internationally. As well, 116 HQs CCOs (Q #4: 116 of 277) indicated that their communication department operates internationally. Yet, 174 of the total number of 278 (Q #18) CCOs reported that their organizations had regional communication departments operating outside of the headquarters of their organization. To clarify, these 174 CCOs were based in one of the 186 organizations (Q #2) said to operate on an international scale and which had communication offices in a country different than the HQs communication department. These 174 CCOs reported that for 55 organizations (Q #18), the regional communication departments located in other countries had their heads reporting directly to the HQs CCO. In this sense, these latter departments operated effectively as if part of the HQs communication department. On the other hand, in 119 organizations, the heads of regional communication departments located in other countries did not report directly to the HQ CCO, though 92 of the 119 reported functionally. Therefore, from our survey data, we can determine that of the 186 organizations with international operations:
Over 50 percent have a HQs communication department with international responsibilities;
Almost 90 percent have regional communication departments based in other countries;
Just over 30 percent of these regional communication departments report directly to the HQs CCO and thus are part of the HQs communication department, with slightly over 50 percent reporting functionally to the HQs CCO and the remaining 20 percent reporting neither directly nor functionally. Thus, 20 percent of regional communication departments appear to operate
independently. Interestingly, these percentages differ from those that we reported previously for the CCOs we interviewed. There, 55 percent of regional communication departments
130 reported directly, with about 20 percent reporting functionally and 25 percent being independent. Notably, the picture that emerged from the on-line survey of the CCO reporting arrangement for regional communication departments located in other countries is duplicated in the answers to the question about where strategies about international communication are formulated (Q #21; N=182). About 30 percent of those with international operations stated that their international communication strategies are formulated at HQs, with every region following this single strategy. Approximately 50 percent indicated that the strategies are prepared jointly between the HQs communication department and the regionally based communication departments, and this allowed each region to ‘localize’ the strategy as need be. The remaining 20 percent stated that the strategies are developed solely in the regions, with each regionally based communication strategy being unique. It is important to note that the same percentages appear, for reporting to the CCO as for where strategies are developed. First, for the 20 percent of strategies developed in the regions, 20 percent of regional communication departments operate independently from the HQs communication department. Likewise, 50 percent of the strategies are developed jointly and 50 percent of the regionally based communication departments report only functionally to the HQs CCO. Finally, 30 percent of strategies are developed at HQs and 30 percent of regional communication departments report directly to and are a part of the HQs communication department. Thus, as one perhaps might have expected, there appears to be a strong correlation between the reporting arrangements of regional communication departments found in other countries in international organizations and the loci for communication strategy development. The above applies to for-profit organizations in our sample. The same could not be said of the not-for-profit organizations, since in the vast majority of cases, they operate only nationally or regionally / locally. Next, we compared the question of (Q #4) whether CCOs had global and continental responsibilities with the question (Q #11) of whether the communication function in such cases was integrated as a single functional department (N= 262), the result was an almost equal split in the number of CCOs with international
131 responsibilities operating with or without control of an integrated department structure. As might be expected, CCOs who have regionally based communications operations reporting directly to them reported affirmatively that they headed an integrated function, while those in organizations with independent regional communication departments acknowledged that they did not have such direct control. However, it is interesting that, from the responses, it appears that those with functional reporting of regionally based communication departments are split on the question of whether this functional type of reporting structure provides the basis for an integrated communication function. Turning to the question of international communication strategy decisions (Q #17 Because my organization is international / global the geographically dispersed communication functions on other continents and in other countries report directly to me at headquarters and Q #20 Because my organization is international / global the regional strategies for communication are; N=159), a quite varied pattern of practices emerged across the sample of for-profit organizations. In relatively few cases did forprofit organizations attempt to set communication strategies centrally and also attempt to completely control their execution at the regional / local level. This was particularly true the more geographically dispersed the organization. What appeared to be the most favoured approach for global / internationally based organizations was to set communication strategy centrally, but to allow regional / local offices varying degrees of freedom to execute the strategy as appropriate. Only in a minority of cases were regional offices allowed to both determine their own communication strategies and also control their execution. In the case of the not-for-profit organizations, because only 19 in the sample had any international / global operations and most comprised relatively small communication departments, it followed that in most cases, the CCO and the central communication team were able to exercise relatively close, centralized control over the communication function and its strategy. Summary This research question essentially sought to explore the extent to which the structure of communication departments in organizations operating on an international scale remains relatively constant or whether it varies across regional locations. The
132 analysis and synthesis of the data revealed a somewhat mixed picture with some organizations adopting or imposing a relatively consistent structure on their communication departments across the organizational ‘communication landscape,’ while in other cases at least elements of structure such as reporting relationships and levels of hierarchy appears to reflect organizational preferences, perhaps including a mirroring of organizational decentralized structures and reporting arrangements. Figure 4.5: RQ 5 Key Relationships Research Questions RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions?
Key Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research There was evidence of a significant relationship between size of the forprofit organization and the scope of operations (global; continental; national; local/regional) of its communication department. Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations had less than 1000 employees and their communication departments only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the CCO’s reporting relationship and the scope of operations of its communication department.
There was evidence of a significant relationship between whether regionally based communication departments in for-profit organizations report to the CCO or not and the loci for where communication strategies that affect regional operations are developed. There appears to be a strong correlation between the reporting arrangements of regional communication departments found in other countries in international organizations and the loci for communication strategy development. Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was
Comment Generally, a larger organization correlates into a communication department with a broader geographical (continental; global) scope of operations and, in a smaller organization, the scope of operations for the communication department tends to be national or local/regional.
The reporting arrangement isn’t determined by whether the CCO is in charge of international, continental, national or local / regional communication operations, since a similar percentage of CCOs reported to CEOs regardless of the scope of their responsibilities. In for-profit organizations, just over 30 percent of regionally based communication departments report directly to the HQs CCO and thus are part of the HQs communication department, with slightly over 50 percent reporting functionally to the HQs CCO and the remaining 20 percent reporting neither directly nor functionally. About 30 percent of those with international operations stated that their international communication strategies are formulated at HQs, with every region following this single strategy. Approximately 50 percent indicated that the strategies are prepared jointly between the HQs communication department and the
133 not possible to test any relationship.
There was evidence of a significant relationship between whether the CCO had continental or global communication responsibilities and whether the communication department in for-profit organizations was integrated into a single department.
regionally based communication departments, and this allowed each region to ‘localize’ the strategy as need be. The remaining 20 percent stated that the regional strategies are developed solely in the regions, with each regionally based communication strategy being unique. CCOs in for-profit organizations who have regionally based communications operations reporting directly to them reported affirmatively that they headed an integrated function, while those in organizations with independent regional communication departments acknowledged that the department was not integrated.
Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship.
Given that structure does not happen autonomously, but is the product of human decisions and actions, it is perhaps not entirely surprising to find a degree of variation in structures, even within individual organizations. In such cases, the issue becomes one of how much relative autonomy exists within international organizational decisionmaking structures to enable local variations in communication functional structures. Here the perennial question may arise of whether strategy follows structure or structure follows strategy. What seems to emerge from the data is that, perhaps not surprisingly, reporting structure and the location of strategy development parallel each other. Here again, the evidence is not conclusive but seems to suggest is that the location of strategy development follows the type of reporting structure for regionally based communication departments. However, on balance, most of the organizations with international communication operations in the sample reported setting a global communication strategy either by the HQs communications department, solely or in conjunction with their regional offices. In the latter case, a central HQ functional reporting relationship was in place. Also, with the regional implementation of communication strategies, there seemed to be the recognition of the need to adapt to local priorities and conditions. Undoubtedly, one of the key drivers in terms of organization and control of communication departments in
134 international organizations seems to be the size and perhaps complexity of the of the HQs and, as importantly, of the regional communication operations. These generally appear to influence the options, in terms of the structural configuration of the department, and in terms of the type of reporting arrangement put in place across an organization’s country-by-country international communication landscape.
RQ 6: If There Are Global Differences In Communication Department Structures, What Are They? Findings To a large degree, RQ6 sought to complement and expand on the previous research question, and to probe more specifically into any detectable differences in the way communication departments are structured and organized across the global platform for those organizations that were operating on an international / global basis. Qualitative Research Findings As stated earlier, our interviewees were located on five continents (Africa, Asia, Europe; North America; and South America) and worked for organizations that spanned a variety of for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. Equally, our interviewees were employed by organizations that had chosen to apply a number of different organizational models. As reported earlier, the 26 CCOs we interviewed worked in organizations with differing geographical reach and / or scope. For the purposes of this RQ, we focused on the responses from the 16 organizations that reported they had worldwide or international operations. In terms of structures adopted amongst these organizations: 2 employed a simple form structure (family owned conglomerate; social services), 5 employed a U-form structure (energy; consumer electronics; energy; social services; water utility), 7 a M-form (financial services; energy; consumer goods; industrial chemicals; liquor producer; medical devices manufacturer; technology manufacturer) and 2 a matrix form (conglomerate; steel producer). While a variety of structural forms were utilized, there does not appear to be a correlation between a given structural form and any particular sector of business or industry. While the majority (9) of these
135 organizations employed more complex and decentralized structures such as M- and matrix forms (for all functional units), not all did. There does appear to be the tendency that the larger the number of employees in the organization, the scope and reach of their operations expands and thus the adoption of a more complex structural form. Also, It appears that the communication function structure attempts to mirror all or some of the features of the chosen organizational structure, in most cases. This tendency appears to be true for both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Perhaps the most significant theme to emerge from the interviews with these CCOs from international / global based organizations was that, almost irrespective of where the organizations were headquartered, there was no dominant pattern for either an organization structure or a communication departmental structure. Rather, what emerged was a broad variety of organizational structures and some mirroring by the communication department. However, of anything, organizations of similar reach had more in common structurally than did organizations headquartered in the same country. Quantitative Research Findings In examining relevant data relating to this research question, the first relationship we examined was between Q #30 organizational structure and Q #2 the number of countries in which organizations operated; N= 244). What clearly emerged from this analysis was that U-form and matrix structures were by far the most common structural forms adopted by for-profit organizations. These two forms dominated, both for private sector organizations that operated in less than 10 countries and those that operated in more than 10 countries. Fifty-five percent of the for-profit organizations that employed a U-form structure operated in less than 10 countries; forty-five percent operated in more than 10. Sixtytwo percent of the for-profit organizations that employed a M-form structure operated in less than 10 countries, while thirty-eight percent operated in more than 10. Thirty-three percent of the for-profit organizations that employed a matrix form structure operated in less than 10 countries; sixty-six percent operated in more than 10. Of the total number of for-profit organizations that operated in more than 10 countries, approximately 34 percent employed a U-form structure, 14 percent M-form,
136 50 percent matrix form and 1 percent a hollow / virtual form. Obviously, the matrix form is more popular for for-profit organizations that operate in a higher number of countries. That said, there also was a level of consistency for each of the U and matrix structural forms across the various categories of numbers of countries that we examined. Given the small number of not-for-profit organizations that operated in more than 10 countries, it was impossible to discern a similar pattern for U-form and matrix structures that was found with the private sector organizations. We should note, though, that the not-forprofits that operated in between 101 – 150 countries, an almost equal number had Uform (2), M-form (2), and matrix (3) structures. Next, we assessed the relationship between Q #30 the forms of organizational structure and Q #4 the CCO’s gamut of managerial responsibility, whether at the global, continental, national or regional / local levels (N= 244). We should note what we found earlier, and represented in Table 4. That is, eighty-four (30%) of the respondent CCOs indicated that they were responsible for communication at the global level, 32 (11%) at the continental level (e.g. North America or Europe), 118 (42%) at the national level and 43 (15%) at the regional / local level. Interestingly, while more than two-thirds of organizations in our sample operate on a global or continental basis and thus internationally, just over 40% of CCOs stated that they have global or continental communication responsibilities. Of the for-profit organizations that employed a U-form organizational structure, thirty-eight percent of CCOs worked at the global or continental levels, with sixty-two percent at the national or regional / local levels. For the for-profit organizations that applied a M-form organizational structure, thirty-six percent of CCOs worked at the global or continental levels, while sixty-four percent worked at the national or regional / local levels. Of the for-profit organizations that employed a matrix form organizational structure, fifty-four percent of CCOs worked at the global or continental levels, with forty-six percent at the national or regional / local levels. For the for-profit organizations that applied a hollow / virtual form organizational structure, seventy-five percent of CCOs worked at the global or continental levels, while twenty-five percent worked at the national or regional / local levels. Clearly, matrix and hollow / virtual forms of structure correlate more strongly with a CCO who has international responsibilities. Again, the
137 majority of not-for-profit CCOs who had international responsibilities worked in organizations that employed U-form or matrix forms, but it was not possible to discern a distinct pattern given the small number of not-for-profit organizations that operated internationally. In looking for significant explanatory relationships between variables that might help us understand any observed differences in structural patterns for these communication departments, our analysis next focused on the relationship between Q #30 the structure of the organizational itself vis-à-vis Q #5 the locations for the headquarters of the communication department (N= 237). Although some differences emerged in dominant structures found in different continents and countries where corporations had based their communication department HQs, it was still, generally, Uform and matrix structures that emerged as by far the most popular. That is, regardless of whether the headquarters for the communication department was in Asia, Australia / New Zealand, North America, South / Latin America or Europe, the vast majority of organizations (over 80%), both for-profit and not-for-profit, employed either a U-form or matrix form organizational structure, followed by the M-form at less than twenty percent. Looking beyond simply the variations in functional structures per se (e.g. spans of control, levels, reporting relationships, etc.) within the international / global organizations, we also examined variations in Q #30 particular structural forms and Q #22 how and where communication strategies have been determined (N= 181) by these organizations to see whether these differences in approach might be linked to a particular structural form. Earlier, under RQ5, we examined approaches to communication strategy-making, identifying essentially four broad variations in the context of international / global communications, namely: 1.
A single, global communication strategy is set centrally, solely by the HQs communication department;
2.
The HQs communication department and the regional communication units set a single strategy, jointly;
3.
There are two strategies developed: a joint, global strategy set by the HQs communication department and the regional units; as well as a separate but complimentary local strategy, localized just for a specific region; and
138 4.
Each region sets its own independent, local communication strategy. Mapping these different approaches to communication strategy-making against
different structural models did not produce any strong correlations between any particular structural form and the different approaches to strategy-making, other than one or two more obvious relationships. Thus, for example, in many of the larger, geographically dispersed for-profit organizations, there was a greater tendency for them to have adopted a matrix-type structure and also a propensity for the third type of approach to communication strategy making. In contrast, for-profit organizations with a strong U-form structure logically tended to favour a strongly centralized approach to communication strategy making and execution, which are the first and second examples given above. In the case of not-for-profit organizations, relatively few were of sufficient size to operate on an international scale but where this was the case, most appear to have favoured either the first or second type of approach to strategy formation and execution. Summary RQ6 sought to ascertain whether there are any global differences in communication department structures, and, if so, what might they be. From the data observed, besides saying that no one dominant structural model could be identified that would satisfy the needs of all organizations operating on an international / global scale, there appears to be a strong relationship to either a U-form or matrix form organizational structures. Certainly, most of the CCOs with international responsibilities work in Uform or matrix structures, with matrix structures dominating the larger the organization. While these are the dominant models, there is no correlation between these structures and any one specific geographical location for the headquarters for the communication department. More importantly, there is not a correlation between structural form and any particular business or industry sector. But, it should be noted that two thirds of all organizations had continental or global operations. Yet, only 41% of CCOs had global or continental responsibilities. Obviously, some organizations with continental or global operations employed regionally based departments that were independent of the HQs communication
139 department and therefore of the CCO. As obvious, there are many organizations with global or continental operations that do not employ communication specialists in these regional operations. There would appear to be a relationship between continental and global operations, typically in M-form organizational structures, and the deployment of independent communication departments or units or the lack of deployment of communication specialists. Figure 4.6: RQ 6 Key Relationships Research Questions RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication function structures, what are they?
Key Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research There was evidence of a significant relationship between organizational structure for for-profit organizations and the number of countries in which an organization operated. Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship. There was evidence of a significant relationship between the scope of responsibilities for the CCO and the number of countries in which a for-profit organization operated. Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structural form of the organization and continental location for the headquarters of the communication department.
Comment U-form and matrix structures were by far the most common structural forms adopted by for-profit organizations. These two forms dominated, both for organizations that operated in less than 10 countries and those that operated in more than 10 countries.
Matrix and virtual forms of structure correlate strongly with a CCO who has international responsibilities.
Generally, U-form and matrix structures emerged as by far the most popular, regardless of whether the headquarters for the communication department was in Asia, Australia / New Zealand, North America, South / Latin America or Europe, The vast majority of organizations (over 80%), both for-profit and not-for-profit, employed either a U-form or matrix form organizational structure.
140 There was evidence of a significant relationship between the structural form of the for-profit organization and where communication strategies are determined when there are communication departments with headquarters and regionally based components. Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship.
U-form organizational structures tended to have all communication strategy developed mainly by the headquarters communication department or that department in conjunction with regionally based departments. In M-form organizations, strategies tended to be developed by departments jointly or developed separately in the regions. In matrix form organizations, strategy tended to be developed jointly in the majority of cases.
On the other hand, there appears to be a correlation between the size of the organization and more complex structural forms. Reviewing the evidence presented previously relating to RQ 5 alongside that relating to RQ 6 leads to a conclusion that the specific country or regional context where an organization’s HQ is based may have only a limited, if any, influence on communication department structure. However, where an organizations is operating on an international / global scope, it would be illogical and potentially damaging for it not to have a communications department that maps onto and that can adequately support all aspects of the organization’s operations. For example, as was noted in RQ5, there appears to be a correlation between the reporting of regional communication operations to the HQs CCO and the location of where communication strategizing is performed. However, this may not necessarily mean that there are likely to be larger individual communication departments in international / global organizations. Rather, the overall size and scope of the communication function as a whole might be expected to grow alongside the growth of an organization’s operations. Again, communication departments in matrix organizations that operate internationally appear to be more likely to integrate regional and HQs communication departments through direct or functional reporting and joint strategizing. Likewise, in terms of strategy-making and structure, the evidence gathered seems to suggest a noticeable preference for some degree of centralized control at least over the formulation of communication strategy, although there seems a reasonably strong recognition of the need to allow perhaps quite remote offices the scope to interpret and adapt central communication strategy to reflect local / regional conditions.
141 In summary, neither the headquarters of the organization nor the business sector it is in seems to affect the choice of structural model for the global or continental organization or for the communication department. In organizations that are international in scope, the communication department seems to mirror the organizational structure in most cases. Though we could not explore this, there may well be a correlation between an organization’s choice of a U-form structure with the direct reporting of regionally based communication departments to the HQs CCO and with centralized communication strategizing. There also may well be a correlation between the functional reporting of regionally based communication departments to the HQs CCO and joint communication strategizing in communication functions within matrix form structured organizations.
RQ 7: Is It Possible For There To Be A Universally Effective Communication Department Structure? Findings This last RQ serves essentially as a counterpoint to RQ6, which explored global differences in communication structures, whereas here the focus is on determining whether a single universally effective communication structure can be identified. In one sense, the answer to this research question has already been heralded in the evidence presented relating to earlier RQs, where a repeated theme has been the diversity of structural examples and experiences, rather than the convergence. Nevertheless, some of the most relevant data and interviewee comments are summarized below. Qualitative Research Findings As we had noted in the qualitative findings for the previous RQs, interviewees identified a variety of potential ‘organizational models’ that could be applied to and reflect the structure of communication departments. Moreover, there also appeared to be a considerable amount of horizontal unit ‘hybridization’ within communication departments, which typically might involve the adoption of a primary structural form along with one or more secondary forms at the same time. For example, we found that
142 in some cases, the communication department might be organized around specific client groups, and / or by stakeholder and / or by communication technical activity / service. If there were one or more regionally based communication departments, then it was entirely possible that the CCO may also organize them by region or geography. Sifting through the extensive volume of qualitative research data accumulated, a number of key themes emerged:
There does not appear to be sufficient evidence to support the contention that the structural form chosen by the organization might have any direct influence on the size of the communication department;
Regardless of the size of the communication department, it appears that each CCO may chose a hybrid for its horizontal organization model, one that includes specialists that are organized by specific client groups, and / or by stakeholder and / or by communication technical activity / service;
The choice of a specific vertical structural model for the communication department only assumes importance within larger communication departments and is likely to assume increasing importance as departments size grows, since structure will determine the options for control and direction of the function’s work. However, what remains unclear is whether there are exact threshold sizes of department that when reached may then trigger a need for changes in vertical organization and thus increased stratification levels and then following in horizontal structural units;
Organizations of similar size and / or reach have more in common structurally than organizations headquartered in the same country;
The communication department structure does not seem to be strongly influenced by such factors as global geographical positioning, nor the country or region where the HQs of the organization is based, and thus, neither regional or country culture nor language;
The communication department structure does seem to be influenced by the structure of the organization itself, in that the communication department must be “close to” internal clients, but, at the same time, it may chose an integrated approach or a non-integrated or functional approach to achieving coordination among HQs and regional communication departments. Drawing on the evidence gathered from the CCOs interviewed as well as the
responses to the open-ended questions in the on-line survey, it was possible to discern a number key trends / developments that the interviewees suggested represent increasingly common characteristics of the modern corporate communication
143 department. These identified characteristics / organizational trends for the communication department included the following:
Alignment of all communication departments;
Being close to business unit priorities and business clients as strategic partners;
Structures that accommodate the addition of growing web based / social media teams;
Structures that accommodate the need to have both generalists and specialists;
Structures that accommodate the need for fluid, project based, virtual teams that are rapidly mobilized and then stand down when project is complete; and
Structures that accommodate work / life balance, allowing flexibility in moving resources across the function as needs arise and workloads fluctuate. These CCOs also identified the following key success factors that help make the
communication department a high performing one (order based on number of references):
Head / department as strategic thinkers, helping the organization understand and achieve business goals by working at the strategic management level of the organization and providing strategic business advice, not simply communication advice;
Having highly talented staff, with a combination of competent generalists and specialists;
Having the resources, particularly the number of employees, needed to be able to perform at the level requested;
Integrating policies, guidelines, processes, strategy, plans, accountabilities, training and resources across all communication units;
Having direct access to the top executives and having their confidence and support;
Having a forward thinking vision, a strategic plan with clear goals and a measurement framework with clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the communication function; and
Having flexibility to respond quickly and to mobilize and move resources as required.
144 While the evidence gathered from the CCOs interviewed did not allow us to identify a single universally effective communication department structure, this may be because no one structure could be fully effective in all circumstances and contexts given the diversity of organizations and, importantly, the diversity in organizational structures. However, what the data did enable us to do was to identify what could be seen as the component building blocks of what might approximate a broadly applicable model for an effective communication department structure. Here the need for a degree of flexibility and fluidity in way the function is organized would seem to be one of the key principles of successful functional organization. But in terms of success factors, what clearly comes through powerfully from the views gathered is the importance of having a sufficient number of the ‘right people’ in place - highly talented, visionary and competent individuals who are capable of interfacing with internal clients and commanding the respect of senior management. In particular, CCOs emphasized the talents of their management team as well as the specialists in their department as important factors in the success of their departments. Quantitative Research Findings Analyzing the results from the survey of CCOs, a number of potentially relevant relationships were identified and are discussed below. As with the previous RQs, a full set of the analysis tables have been provided in the appendices to the report, whereas here we have discussed only the most immediately relevant relationships between the variables. The first relationship discussed that appeared to relate to this research question was the one between Q #4 the CCO’s geographical sphere of operation and Q #33 the CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities (N= 239). Of the 192 for-profit CCOs that responded to these questions, two-thirds (132) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that the current structure of their department impeded its activities. Put the other way, over two-thirds of the private sector respondents believed that their current structure worked effectively, facilitating the communication department’s support for their
145 organization. This rough two-thirds to one-third ratio held up in all organizational categories - i.e. for CCOs having global or continental responsibilities, as much as for CCOs with national or regional / local responsibilities. Clearly, there was no definitive relationship between these two variables among the for-profit organizations. As well, the same could be said for not-for-profit organizations. When CCOs were asked what they thought were the key success ingredients (factors) of highly successful communication departments (Q #36), 155 (of 219) private sector CCOs and 32 (of 56) not-for-profit CCOs identified support from senior executives as the most influential ingredient. This was the only factor that garnered this kind of response with many other factors getting one or two responses each from both types of organizations. Of the 155 for-profit CCOs who responded to this question, 46 had global, 18 continental, 75 national and 16 local / regional responsibilities. Of the 32 not-for-profits, 4 had global and 2 continental responsibilities while 13 each had national or regional / local responsibilities. One interesting insight into the significance of functional size in terms of its influence on structure emerged when the analysis juxtaposed Q #14 department size with Q #34 CCOs’ views about whether the current structure impeded the activities of the communication department in contributing to the organization’s efficacy (N= 236). Of the 190 for-profit CCOs who responded to the two questions, approximately twothirds of for-profit CCOs, regardless of the size of their departments, believed that they supported organizational strategies and that the structure of their department was not an impediment. For not-for-profit CCOs, the ratio was slightly over but close to 50-50. However, these findings need to be set against the fact that of the 190 respondents, 110 headed departments of less than 10 employees and a further 35 headed departments of between 11 and 25 employees. Of these 145 respondents, only 27 (or 18 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that their current structure was a barrier to offering support. Here it was not possible to ascertain in what way structure might prove an inhibitor, albeit for this minority of respondent organizations. However, even amongst those respondents to this question (45) who led communication departments of more than 25 employees, only a relatively small percentage (22 percent) expressed the view that structure might in some way inhibit their contribution to their respective
146 organizations. Thus, in short, regardless of departmental size, department structure appears to be seen as an issue by only about 20 percent of CCOs. Interestingly, could it be that for this 20 percent they haven’t had a recent – and needed – restructuring? In Q #27, we found that for approximately 9 percent of respondents the communication department had not been restructured or reorganized in over five years, and for another 16 percent of CCOs in over three years. While three quarters of CCOs had restructured within the last three years, for this smaller number, their continuing with a legacy structure may well be an impediment. In the case of not-for-profit organizations, for the 46 not-for-profit communication departments responding to this question, 28 had fewer than 10 employees and 10 had between 11 and 25 employees. Here only 15 percent of CCOs who led a communication department with 25 employees or under agreed or strongly agreed that structure was an issue. Again, with such relatively small departments, it is perhaps hardly surprising that structure was not perceived to be a key issue by the majority of CCOs. However, while structure did not appear to be a barrier to providing support to the organization’s strategies and activities, this may not imply that the size of the department per se is not in itself an issue. In the open-ended questions, a number of for-profit and not-for-profit CCOs cited such issues as: “lack of resources;” “severely understaffed;” “too much work for too few resources;” “not quite enough staff to perform at the level being requested;” and “too small.” In this sense, size of the communication department might well be a factor limiting whether the communication department can support organizational strategies effectively. As noted earlier in this chapter, for a smaller sized department, having the right number of staff and most importantly having the right mix of generalist and specialist competencies among the staff compliment may contribute more to supporting organizational strategies than simply how the employees are organized within the department. Although somewhat tangential to the central research question, CCOs were asked to identify Q #14 the size of the department and linked this question to Q #35 what they thought were the strengths of the current structure of their department (N= 236). By far the most popular response of for-profit CCOs (127 out of 197) was that the
147 strength of their current departmental structure was the ability to leverage the resources and skills of employees. CCOs in not-for-profit organizations also identified this as the key strength. If the majority of the CCOs who responded to the survey lead communication departments having 25 or fewer employees, it would make sense that in order to support organizational strategies and activities they would have to leverage the best from their employees. This is particularly true if the CCO feels the department is understaffed and that there is more work than there are resources. Or, if the CCO has responsibility for a broad range of disciplines as previously noted (external communication; internal communication; media relations; issues management; web communication) yet a small staff, she or he may need a number of very talented generalists who can perform well in different roles - in the place of specialists for each discipline or technical service. Both for-profit and not-for-profit CCOs also generated a long list of other factors that were seen as the strengths of their departmental structures - but most of these were endorsed only by one or two CCOs. A further related survey question sought to link Q #14 department size to Q #36 factors that the CCOs in the sample thought contributed to making the structure work (N= 248). Looking at the top three responses, both for-profit and not-for-profit CCOs agreed that the most important factor was the leadership competencies of the CCO and communication department senior executives that were selected by 67 percent of forprofit sector and nearly 60 per cent of non-profit sector CCOs. Among for-profit CCOs, the next highest response received was the organization’s senior executive staff support, followed by my and my managers’ managerial competencies. In the case of not-for-profits CCOs, a different ranking emerged - with the second most favoured response being having generalists on staff who can fill in many roles followed by the sentiment that departments should be developed into fun places to work. In both the for-profit and not-for-profit cases, again the majority of CCOs headed departments of less than 25 people and in most cases less then 10 people. It was notable, however, that there did not seem to be any really significant difference in the responses to these questions from the CCOs who headed larger rather than smaller departments. There was broad agreement that perhaps the primary factor
148 behind the effective working of the communication department and of the department structure (regardless of the type of structure) were the qualities of the leaders in charge, again irrespective of department size. Examining other factors that might influence or relate to department structure, which did not always engender such consensus, we first sought to examine the issue of the emphasis and effort organizations put into reviewing and revising the structure of communication departments. Here, we examined Q #27 how often organizations in our sample reviewed their communication structures and linked it to Q #33 whether the CCOs thought the current structure of their departments did or did not impede the department’s ability to support organizational activities and strategies (N=239). Of the 192 for-profit CCOs who responded to these questions, 136 CCOs either strongly agreed (47) or agreed (89) that the structure of their communication department underwent regular reviews and was revised continuously to suit prevailing conditions. Of these 136 CCOs whose departments underwent regular review and revision, the vast majority (105), perhaps not entirely surprisingly, either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the current structure of their department impeded the communication department from contributing to the organization’s development. What these responses seem to suggest is that a majority of for-profit CCOs have recognized the need to reorganize their communication department structures periodically so as to be in a position to continue to be able to support organizational strategies and activities. Among not-forprofits, of the 47 CCOs who responded to this question, just about half (23) either strongly agreed (3) or agreed (20) that their department structures were frequently reviewed and revised while 12 remained neutral and 12 strongly disagreed (4) or disagreed (8) with the premise. Of the 23 not-for-profit CCOs whose departments were regularly reviewed and revised, just over a half of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the current structure of their department impeded the activities of their departments. Interestingly, 6 of these 23 CCOs remained neutral. Thus, it would seem that the majority of CCOs believe that department structures need to continually reviewed and at least fine-tuned on a regular basis in order to ensure that they are operating in the most effective manner that can support the work of the rest of the organization
149
Summary
Drawing on the qualitative and quantitative data gathered relating to RQ7, the initial intuitive answer to the question of whether or not a ‘universally effective communication function structure’ can be identified, would be no. It is not possible to identify a single universally effective communication function structure, if for no other reason than the very diversity of organizational structures that need to be accommodated within any one model. Clearly, neither the country where the HQs was located, nor the geographical reach of the organization, or the business / industry sector in which the organization operated had any affect on there being a universal communication department structure. Moreover, to identify a single universal structure ignores the essential dynamic of organizational life that dictates the need for constant renewal and change, albeit that in the short-term, structure per se may remain relatively constant. Figure 4.7: RQ 7 Key Relationships Research Questions RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication function structure?
Key Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between a CCO’s geographical sphere of operations and a CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the size of the communication department and a CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities. There was evidence of a significant relationship between communication departments that underwent regular reviews and CCO disagreement with the perception that the current structure of their department impeded the communication department from contributing to the organization’s development.
Comment Regardless of the geographical responsibility (local/regional; national; continental; global), a two to one ratio held up. Twothirds of CCOs in each sphere believed their current structure worked effectively. One third felt the opposite. Regardless of the size of the department, two-thirds of forprofit CCOs believed their current structure worked effectively. One third felt the opposite. For not-for-profit CCOs, it was 50/50. Most for-profit CCOs and about half of the not-for-profit CCOs reorganize their communication department structures regularly in order to be able to support changing conditions in the organization.
150 Communication departments need to react and adapt to organizational changes periodically to ensure the department is still close to internal clients. At the same time, we found that about one in five CCOs felt that their communication department had not adapted and was not now structured properly to be able to provide support to organizational strategies and activities. CCOs also put forward the importance of senior executive support, the CCOs and her or his management team’s leadership and management abilities as well as their ability to leverage the skills of employees as factors that allow for flexibility and fluidity in an existing structure. While the evidence does not necessarily point to a single universal structural model for organizational communication departments, it does suggest a number of component elements and principles of an effective communication function. Here perhaps one of the most repeated principles or characteristics identified earlier and throughout the evidence presented relating to a number of other RQs has been the notion that the most effective communication department structure would be one that integrates all communication functions and operations. Of course, the term ‘integration’ may be open to a variety of interpretations and may manifest itself in a variety of ways; for example, in terms of how strategies and policies are determined and executed at the HQs and at the regional / local levels. Other core principles related to the basis on which the communication department horizontal structure is organized - by geography, by functions, by internal client, by stakeholder and / or by technical activities / services or by hybrid of all of these. It would appear that a majority of departments group staff members into units by implementing their own form of hybrid model. Communication department structure should also parallel that of the organization itself, particularly in more complex organizations, in order to be in close proximity of internal clients and their business strategy and priorities. Indeed, earlier in this section of the findings, we presented a number of characteristics / organizational trends for communication departments that might serve as a form of ‘checklist’ of structural design and management principles that organizations could draw upon. As well, we presented a checklist of ‘success factors’ for high performing communication departments.
151 Overall Summary of Findings
Having examined the key findings from the qualitative and quantitative data analysis relating to each of the seven research questions (RQs), it may be useful to draw together and summarize some of the key findings before moving on in the next chapter of the report that explores the implications and conclusions that can be drawn from the research. In reviewing the findings presented in this chapter, it would be appropriate to consider the findings in the light of the overall guiding goal of the study, namely to conduct “an international study involving progressively deep investigations of topperforming communication functions within organizations, with the goal of identifying the factors that influence communication department structure and effectiveness.” Bearing this goal in mind, the key findings emerging from the study can be summarized as follows:
The majority of communication departments support the same set of core disciplines: external communication; media relations; internal communication; web communication; and issues/crisis management.
Organizational and functional structure does not come about autonomously; rather it is the product of human choices and actions.
No single dominant model of organizational structure has emerged, rather there appeared to be a range of alternative structures in place, including: simple form, Uform, M-form, matrix form and virtual form structures.
As well, no single dominant model of communication department structure has emerged.
Most CCOs reported working in organizations where the overall prevailing structures were U-form (centralized / hierarchical / vertical) and matrix form structured organizations, with a small number of examples of M-form (decentralized / horizontal) structured organizations and with only a few working in simple form or virtual / hollow form structured organizations.
There were a set number of horizontal structural options (by activity / services; by internal client; by stakeholder; etc.) employed by communication department CCOs, regardless of the size of the department, to organize staff into units within the department - and there was a considerable amount of hybridization between and among each of these organizing options.
The number of vertical structural strata employed by the CCOs to create a hierarchy within the department appeared dependent on the size of the department.
152 Where communication departments comprise less than 10 or even 25 people, it may be quite meaningless to talk about the full range of vertical structural options within the department itself. Although horizontal structural options are not dependent on the size of the department, vertical options indeed are. The number of strata or levels of hierarchy will affect the breadth of the horizontal structure and thus the amount of hybridization employed when organizing units. This is where structure does assume its greatest importance, generally in the larger, perhaps multinational organizations.
The size of the department appeared to be a more important factor influencing decisions on communication department structure than organizational size.
Slightly over one half of for-profit and not-for-profit CCOs in this study sat on the senior management team within their organizations. This was irrespective of the particular structural model for their organizations. They seemed to enjoy the support of senior management and had their views listened to, regardless of the structure of the organization or their department.
Key factors identified as contributing to the effectiveness of the communication department structure included: leadership competencies and managerial capabilities of those running the department; support of senior management; the culture and working environment within the department including the mix of talented staff members; the length of the chain of command; and the span of control of communication managers.
There was a very strong emphasis on the importance of leadership by the CCO, particularly when organizations are faced with responding to change, especially in managing change - with some regularity - to the communication department structure.
The evidence is somewhat ambiguous on the question of whether a clear link can be identified between communication department structure and organizational efficacy. While CCOs do appear to be gaining greater representation on the senior management team and do appear to be making an increasingly valued input to senior management decision-making, there is little evidence to suggest that their more significant contribution has been facilitated by the structural configuration of the communication department. Structure appears to be only one of a number of variables that contribute to organizational success and efficacy.
A rather mixed picture emerges of the way in which in organizations operating on an international / global scale have structured their communication departments. In some cases, organizations have adopted or imposed a relatively consistent structure on their HQs and regionally-based communication departments, while in other cases, elements of structure such as reporting relationships (functional or not at all), loci of strategy development and levels of hierarchy appear to suggest structural inconsistency, with emphasis on local conditions or preferences.
153 Reflecting this dichotomy, there appeared to be a strong preference for either Uform or matrix form organizational structures.
The communication department structure does not seem to be strongly influenced by such factors as global geographical positioning, nor the country or region where the HQs of the organization is based, nor regional or country culture or language.
While no single universally effective communication department structure can be identified, (this may be because no one structure could be fully effective in all situations and contexts), the data helps identify what could be seen as the component building blocks of what might approximate towards a broadly applicable model of effective communication department structure. Here the key principles for a successful communication functional structure appear to be: a degree of flexibility and fluidity in way the function is organized; and having sufficient of the ‘right people’ in place - highly talented and competent individuals who are capable of interfacing with internal clients and commanding the respect of senior management.
154
Chapter 5 Discussion of Research Question Findings This study recognizes and builds on the findings of previous research relating to the effective management of the communication / public relations function sponsored by the IABC Research Foundation, most notably the “Excellence study” (1985-2002). Although this previous research has touched upon issues of communication department organization, particularly in terms of reporting relationships and the position of the communication function within organizational hierarchies, relatively limited emphasis had been placed, and subsequently has been placed, on exploring communication department structures per se and how such structures may influence the operation of the communication / public relations function. Thus, this study attempts to fill this ‘gap’ in our knowledge and to explore how important the issue of structure may be in understanding how different organizations may attempt to manage and deploy their communication resources so as to maximize their effectiveness. One challenge for this study has been the lack of in depth, prior research into the issue of functional ‘structures’ in the communication / public relations context. Add to this the extra challenge that not much evidence can be found of scholars in this field drawing on the reasonably extensive body of management / organizational literature on the subject of ‘structure’. Having presented our literature review in Chapter 2 of the report and reported the empirical findings from both the qualitative and quantitative phases of the research in Chapter 4, in this chapter we now attempt the task of distilling and synthesizing the data, with reference to this literature, in order to build and deepen the response to the research questions. Here, we discuss what the findings for each RQ infer and consider the implications of our data. In Chapter 6 following, taking an approach that is the counterpart to that in Chapter 5, we will examine the eight themes that emerged from our extensive literature review, by utilizing our empirical findings as reference. Chapters 5 and 6, taken together, provide a thorough scrutiny of the possible learning from this study.
155 It may be useful to restate the seven key research questions that this study set out to address which have been used as a framework around which to present our conclusions and discussion in this chapter.
RQ 1: Are there specific structures / models for communication departments?
RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication department structure and organizational structure?
RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication department structure?
RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy?
RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions?
RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication department structures, what are they?
RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication department structure?
RQ 1: Are there specific structures / models for communication departments? We stated in summarizing our empirical findings for RQ 1 in Chapter 4 that we found that there was no single dominant model of communication department structure. Regardless that there was not a dominant model, the majority of CCOs maintained the following core disciplines (external communication; internal communication; media relations; issues management; web communication) and attempted to organize their staff members into positions or units (units holding two or more similar positions) first by technical activity / service and second by stakeholders and internal clients. We also found that a CCO’s scope of communication management responsibility (local / regional; national; continental; or global) had no correlation with whether the CCO maintained these core disciplines or not (the majority did across all scopes of responsibilities), with whether the communication department was integrated or not
156 (approximately half of the CCOs led integrated departments across all scopes of responsibilities), with the number of levels of hierarchy in the department (the majority of departments had two or three levels of hierarchy across all scopes of responsibility), with the basis of organizing staff members (the majority of CCOs organized first by technical activity / service, then by stakeholder and client across all scopes of responsibilities) and with whether the CCO reported to the CEO (approximately 50% did across all scopes of responsibility). In reviewing the evidence collected relating to this first research question (RQ) and comparing this evidence with the relevant themes previously teased out from the literature, a number of significant connections emerge. While an important focus found within the literature appears to centre on hierarchical structural models, for most of the communication departments studied here such considerations appeared to be, at best, only secondary considerations. The principle reason for the apparent lack of a strong primary consideration in the issue of functional structure among CCOs would appear to be, first, the relatively small size of most communication departments and, second, the possible existence of two or more independent communication units in the organization. In our study, some 60 per cent of departments reported employing 10 or fewer people and over three quarters of all departments employed less than 25 people - figures that further anecdotal evidence and reference to other studies suggest is fairly typical of the industry as a whole. About half of the CCOs reported that there were additional communication units beyond the main department. The smaller the department, the smaller the number of vertical structural options the CCO has available from which to choose. Of course, the inference here is that vertical structure is only one of a number of variables affecting the operation of communication departments and may only become a particularly significant issue in larger and perhaps geographically dispersed communication departments. This disproportionate bias towards larger international / global based organizations in order to see the full manifestation of aspects of organizational theory such as structural models and structural configuration theory is not only confined to the field of communication, it is found across most other areas of organizational study. This is not to suggest that smaller and medium sized enterprises
157 (SMEs) are not of interest to organizational scholars. Quite the opposite is true, since they make up the vast majority of enterprises around the world. However, for the purposes of this study, organizational size and, commensurately, communication department size do appear to be largely polarized between those predominately small scale functional departments and the relatively small number of much larger, perhaps internationally spread functions where the issue of organizational and management structure is a more obvious concern in order to exercise effective control and management of a more complex and perhaps scattered communication / public relations function. Therefore, where vertical structure does not appear to be of primary significance for communication departments in this study, certainly horizontal structure - the creation of specific positions and the organization of these positions into units – is. Although our study was not conceived to achieve this depth, let’s imagine a CCO with nine staff members in a single, integrated communication department. The CCO tries to maintain the same core disciplines as a CCO of a much larger department: external communication; internal communication; media relations; issues management; and web communication. This CCO might also have responsibility for marketing communication or membership communication. Like other CCOs of much larger departments, the CCO organizes these staff members first by technical activities / services. Here are just some of the organizational design questions a CCO must ask and answer. Does the CCO have technical specialists for such activities / services as: writing/editing; media monitoring; speech writing; web site design and maintenance; web content and posting; media relations collateral and distribution; social media channel design and maintenance; social media content and posting; publications; events; exhibits; graphic design; video production; photography; and inquiry management? Does the CCO create full-time technical specialist positions or combine responsibility for one or more technical activities / services with account executive responsibilities in a generalist position or contract out some technical activities / services? Of the nine staff members, how many are in full-time technical specialist positions and how many are in generalist positions organized by specific stakeholders or internal clients? Taking one core discipline - internal communication - does the CCO
158 assign an account executive by stakeholder (employees) or by internal client (HR)? Does the account executive have responsibility for performing technical activities / services such as writing, speechwriting, events, the intranet side, web postings, internal social media channels or social media postings? Or, does the account executive only have responsibility for providing such work as internal communication advice, planning and campaign development and execution? One can appreciate the complexities of designing a horizontal structure and the creation of specific positions and the organization of these positions into units, even in a nine-person communication department. The other issue that emerged alongside consideration of broader horizontal structural choice decisions was that of the appropriate number of levels of functional stratification within departments, which appeared to be strongly influenced by department size. Here it was clear from the sample data that a large number of CCOs (159 of 187) operated with organizational structures that typically comprised no more than two or three levels of stratification. The prevalence of such relatively simple vertical structures can be explained largely by the relatively small sized communication departments, which generally made the adoption of any more complex stratification illogical. The second question, besides the number of strata, is when to introduce a new hierarchical level. For example, looking at our nine-person communication department again, does the CCO have all of the other eight positions report to the CCO or does the CCO introduce a supervisory position, such as for creative services and group a number of technical activities / services (graphic design; video production; publications; events; web site design) into a single unit? Of course, the larger the communication department, the more concern the CCO has with the vertical stratification of the department. In a small department, the primary concern of the CCO is with horizontal structural, particularly the number of positions or units and the degree to which each unit is specialized. There are not many options available to the CCO when grouping units into a division under a supervisor or manager who in turn would report to the CCO. A CCO with 15-25 employees may have two or three managers reporting and thus only two or three divisions under which to group units of employees (with these units
159 themselves only consisting of one, two or maybe three specialists). The findings show that the CCO who manages 25 employees or less considers units built around activities / services first, then units dedicated to specific stakeholders next and then finally units devoted to specific internal clients. Given the need to ‘mix and match’ these units and perhaps specialization within these units, the CCO thus arrives at a hybrid horizontal structure, build to meet immediate requirements. Therefore, structure may only become a significant issue for these departments of less than 25 employees in two ways. First, if they are part of a largely international or globally dispersed organization, then the question of how the small department at headquarters relates to regional or country specific communication departments becomes important. Here the relationship maybe one of direct reporting, functional reporting or non-reporting. Reporting may also depend on whether the headquarters communication department has the critical mass to direct, monitor or work with regional or country specific units. A second significant consideration affecting the importance attached to structure maybe where the headquarters communication department of 25 or less employees is not the only communication department at headquarters, then the same questions regarding relationships may appear. Our study did not allow this level of granularity, but certainly, these are questions that may be of importance to a CCO of a small in size communication department. Again, although it was difficult to uncover any direct evidence of factors determining the number of levels of stratification, regardless of size of the communication department, anecdotally and almost self-evidently, department size in terms of its likely effect on the ‘extent of the chain of command’ would appear to offer the most obvious explanation for the relatively limited degree of stratification found in the majority of communication departments across the sample as well as more generally. One issue that emerged and which divided opinion was the question of whether the communication function should operate where possible on an integrated or decentralized basis. By ‘integrated’, respondents generally alluded to the idea of having a communication function organized on the basis of a single, centralized department, which was believed to lead to better internal communications, less divergence and other
160 benefits such as more extensive career paths and options. The notion of an ‘integrated’ communication function / department also had a second connotation, namely it meant either direct reporting to the CCO (and thus a single department with a single, primary head), or functional reporting (where a communication manager of another communication department reported functionally to the primary communication head – and also reported directly to an operational head in the organization). From a structural perspective, functional reporting could allow the CCO to integrate communication responsibilities as well as integrate all employee resources in delivering on those responsibilities. Thus, the notion of an ‘integrated’ function embraced both these views. In a significant number (19 out of 24 in our qualitative research) of the larger corporations, the HQs-based respondent CCOs claimed to operate a stand-alone, fully ‘integrated’ communication department at the headquarters communication function. However, across the broader quantitative sample of organizations, evidence for the existence of an integrated communication department was less prevalent, falling to just over 50 per cent of CCOs. Further analysis found no significant relationship between the size of the communication department, the scope of the functions’ work or the geographical scope of operation and the extent of department integration. A further interesting implication that can be drawn from the findings of this study relating to the notion of integration is the issue of out-sourcing work. Some 30% of respondents indicated that they conducted 90% of their work in house. This is an interesting concentration of activity. However, it reciprocally indicates that 70% of respondents engage in some form of outsourcing. This indicates the notion of ‘extended structure’, or a marketplace for communications operations, is in existence. Indeed, this suggests an area worthy of potential future research. For example, when examining the notion of extended structure, options may range from outsourcing (where the CCO may outsource the complete public affairs or government relations program to an outside agency) to contracting-out (where the CCO will bring in an outside agency for a project, such as a campaign or a particular communication channel such as a blog). For departments with 25 or less employees, the ability to fund an extended structure from operational budgets rather than salary budgets may be crucial to the ability to deliver on all responsibilities.
161 In summary, a number of significant conclusions and possible implications for organizational and communication management can be identified relating to this first research question, including the following:
No universal structural model or structural configuration emerges that can be applied to all communication departments;
Organizational and departmental size appears to be the key driver shaping vertical structural choices and the predominantly small size of the majority of communication departments appears to make ‘vertical structure’ a secondary consideration in most cases – simply because the lack of hierarchy limits the number of structural options available to the CCO;
Uncertainty over how best to organize horizontally into units (by stakeholder; by service; etc.) is common for all communication departments regardless of size since most communication departments maintain the same core disciplines, but becomes more complicated or variable for larger departments because they then must consider the number of levels of stratification and in each level, the number of units and unit managers; and
For the larger communications functions in particular, an additional issue regarding structure is whether all communication departments in the organization, where there is more than one, can be integrated through direct or functional reporting.
RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication department structure and organizational structure? In summarizing our empirical findings for RQ 2 in Chapter 4, we found that there was little conclusive evidence of a direct relationship between organizational and communication department structures. When reviewing the evidence gathered during the study, a somewhat ambiguous position seems to emerge with regard to any link between the overall organizational structure and the communication department structure. On one level, the evidence appears to suggest that in the vast majority of cases, there was at best only a tenuous link between overall organizational and communication departments structures, at least in terms of the department’s structural design. For example, there wasn’t a significant relationship between organizational structure and the core disciplines of the communication department or the number of levels of
162 hierarchy in the department. Taking this further, there wasn’t a significant relationship between organizational structure and whether the CCO reported to the CEO (RQ 4), whether the CCO sat on the highest level committee (RQ 4), whether the CCO’s inputs are valued (RQ 4), whether current communication department structures facilitates my department to support the organization (RQ 4) or where communication strategies are determined (RQ 6). On the other hand, as was indicated previously, some of the evidence suggests that it is only logical to find that departmental structures would take their lead from and map closely onto the overall organizational structures. For example, there was a significant relationship between U-form and / or matrix form organizational structures and size of the organization (U-form and organizations operating in under 10 countries and matrix form in countries operating in between 10 and 100 countries) and integration of the communication department as a single department. As well, there is some evidence to suggest a relationship between matrix form organizational structure and CCOs sitting on the highest-level management committees, whether CCO inputs are valued and where communication strategies are determined. The explanation for this apparent contradiction in the evidence may lie in distinguishing more clearly between our understanding of structure in terms of the way people and activities within communication departments are organized, and functional reporting structures. While the former does seem to lack conformity with some broader organizational structural format and may well reflect individual CCO preferences, the latter generally does seem to require compliance with the overall structural reporting relationships determined by the organization’s senior management. Reviewing the data, it also appears that rather than employing a single, structural form for the communication function, it was common to find hybrid horizontal structures particularly where organizations were found to be operating in more than one country or location. These hybrid structures included choices on how to organize units horizontally and choices around direct and or functional reporting. What is perhaps particularly significant was the fact that many CCOs interviewed did not necessarily see structures, especially in relatively small size departments, as a particularly significant issue for them. Certainly, as has been noted, it is not an issue for which they had that many
163 alternative options from which to chose. If a pattern could be said to have emerged, it was not one characterized by some typical organizational structure per se, rather the work of communication departments seemed to be organized around one or more of four base service models: by technical activities / services, by general functions, by stakeholders, and by internal client / business area. In each case, one or other of these base organizational models tended to provide the dominant basis for organizing the work of communication department services. Although, as acknowledged earlier, the findings were far from conclusive, there was some correspondence between these bases for organizing communication / public relations services and the overall organizational structures. Thus, in more centralized, U-form types of organizations, the dominant basis for organizing functional departments appeared to be around activities / services, while in more decentralized, M-form and matrix organizations it tended to see importance given to around activities / services and around internal clients. Arguably, organizing the communication department around technical activities / services is not dependent on the type of structure the organization itself has chosen, since the need for specialized service units transcends all communication departments. On the other hand, organizing by clients, where the communication department is providing account executives or account teams to each client, has to be influenced by the model - and most importantly the degree of decentralization inherent in the model the organization has chosen. Therefore, it makes sense for a communication department located in a multidivisional organization to also organize horizontally into units by client. That is, as the organization increased the number of divisions and/or decentralized, the communication department sought to find ways to be close to internal clients including newer ones. The account executive unit becomes a primary building block of the department, particularly for departments of 25 employees and over. This might be the dominant organizing factor in such cases, but certainly not the only one since the communication department might also have units organized by activities / services. The organizational structure therefore may, to a degree, exert some influence on the form of department organization of units, particularly if it is multidivisional or matrix structure. Otherwise, there does not appear to be any obvious or direct correspondence between organizational structure on one hand and
164 communication departmental structure on the other. Perhaps the strongest influence coming from the organizational level on departmental structure can be traced to the impact of overall organizational size and operational scope, which appear to be the key variables contributing to shaping decisions about communication and other department structures. Certainly, there was a significant relationship, in for-profit organizations, between the size of the organization and the scope of responsibilities of its CCO (RQ 5) and number of countries in which the organization operated and the scope of responsibilities for the CCO (RQ 6). Again, taking this further, there was evidence of a significant relationship between whether the CCO had continental or global scope of responsibilities and whether the communication department was integrated as a single department (RQ 5). As was suggested in reviewing the evidence gathered in relation to RQ 1, organizational size and scope of operations served as key influences shaping many other decisions affecting the strategy, structures and day-to-day operation of each organization. Given that, as we have seen, over half the organizations sampled employed less than 5000 people and in 78 per cent of cases employed less than 25 people in the communication function and less than 10 people in 60 per cent of those cases, it was hardly surprising to discover that in the vast majority of such departments, attempting to mirror the organizational structure was not seen as an issue of significant concern, nor was there any evidence of a conscious attempt to map or match departmental structure (such as it was) to any broader organizational structure. Given the numbers involved, arguably there was no logical reason for CCOs to attempt to do so. Indeed, the study clearly suggests that it is only amongst a minority of the largest organizations that communication departments numbering more than 50 employees can be found. Indeed, in only 6% of cases in the study did total communication department employee numbers exceed 100. On the other hand, while there is limited evidence that CCOs try to mirror the organizational structure directly and exactly, CCOs do try to be ‘close to’ their internal clients. In doing so, then, they may be indirectly mirroring elements of the overall organizational structure. Although no direct correlation could be established between organizational size and communication department size, nevertheless indirect evidence points to the fact
165 that it is only in the larger and often geographically dispersed organizations that is possible to justify sustaining larger communication staff numbers. But, while that may be obvious, it may also be that communication department size may be relative. Anecdotal evidence may suggest that in some cases smaller communication departments may have a higher ratio of communication department employees to the total number of employees in the organization than would larger communication departments. Imagine two CCOs, one leading a communication department in an organization of 100,000 employees and the other leading a communication department in an organization of 1000 employees. The CCO of the larger communication department has 100 communication staff members, or 0.1% of the total number of employees in the organization. The CCO of the smaller communication department, trying to maintain the same core disciplines (external communication; internal communication; media relations; issues management; web communication) and trying to offer a range of technical activities / services (for example: writing / editing; graphic design; video production; publications; events; web site design; etc.) has 10 employees, or 1.0% of the total number of employees in the organization. So, larger organizations may house larger communication departments when comparing the absolute number of employees, but smaller organizations may house communication departments that are bigger on a percentage basis than those in larger organizations. While taking these two methods of assessing communication department size into consideration, we should note again that this study did not find a direct correlation between communication department size and organizational size. That is, there is no apparent magic formula where for each one hundred or one thousand employees in the organization as a whole there should be one, ten or 6.76893 communication department employees. It is also important to acknowledge that in reviewing these findings, we are essentially looking at a temporal snapshot of structural arrangements across the sample of organizations. It is also important to acknowledge that this study was conducted in the aftermath of the major economic downturn that originated in the 2008-09 period. Our ‘snapshot’ regarding the size of many communication departments, particularly the fact that the majority of departments in our study comprise less than 25 employees, may reflect a general downsizing of communication department size as a reaction to the
166 economic downturn. While that may well be the case, we must emphasize that SMEs do form the bulk of organizations around the world. For example, 96% of all organizations in Europe are SMEs. Therefore, having a sample where three quarters of CCOs lead departments of less than 25 employees should not be seen as out of the ordinary. Large, multinational companies are in fact a very small subset of all organizations around the world. As other research studies such as the USC Annenberg GAP Studies and the European Communication Monitor studies have revealed, there has been a broad move towards restructuring - in particular toward the ‘downsizing’ of many communication departments in recent years as organizations have sought to become leaner and more efficient. This drive for increased efficiency has one obvious implication for communication departments, and more importantly, for smaller sized communication departments, namely a resulting emphasis on the need for generalists rather than specialists, in order to cover the scope of the work required but with fewer employees. As a number of respondents indicated, and as the earlier review of the literature confirms, organizations of all sizes can and do transition over time - not the least in terms of their structural configurations. Here changes in ownership, in personnel, in leadership as well as externally imposed industry or market change and ‘fashionable trends in structural design’ may shape choice decisions over organizational and functional department structures. Reviewing the responses to RQ 2, it would appear that the relationship between organizational and communication department structures is very much a ‘top-down’ one in the sense organizational variables such as the overall structural form adopted, and the size and scope of the organization’s operations appeared to influence communication department structures. This said, as the data suggests, where the size of the communication department numbers less that 25 or in many cases less than 10 (which may of course be a product of organizational level decisions), such discussion of structural relationship per se may be largely meaningless. In general, less complex organizational structures such as simple form and U-form tended not to be exhibited in separate divisions and geographically based operations. More complex organizational structures such as M-form and Matrix form tended towards divisional and geographical
167 operations, with communication departments following suit. Similarly, communication departments in more complex organizational structures tended to organize their resources by internal business line client as one of their structural building blocks. In larger, more complex organizations, while one communication department model tends to be organizing units by client, it is not the only model employed. A parallel model would see units devoted to, for example, activities / services. Another model in a larger communication department in a larger, more complex organization may be organizing by sub-function, with the addition of specialized functions such as communication research, planning and measurement. Thus, ultimately, the model for organizing horizontally into units may often be a hybrid. Here, it is important to remember that the vast majority of organizations globally are technically relatively small SME-types, and hence to over-emphasize the significance of the communication structures found in larger, more complex, globally-based organizations would be to misrepresent the typical picture of communication department structures as a whole. Once again, a key variable appears to be department size, which serves arguably as, at least, a notional ‘threshold’ below which issues of (formal) structure, in terms of organizing people, activities and resources along with the accompanying command and control and reporting procedures, are simply not recognized as necessary. This is not to suggest that small departments do need any ‘command and control’ or reporting mechanisms; rather these may be enacted through either informal arrangements, or relatively simple reporting procedures. While the evidence gathered certainly seems to support this notion of some level of ‘size threshold’ determining the adoption or not of more formal structures within communication departments, what was not possible to determine precisely was what this ‘size threshold’ number might be, and whether this size threshold is more or less constant across all organizations and sectors. As noted previously, levels of stratification or hierarchy seem to increase from two to three at around 9-12 employees, from three to four between 25 and 30 and from four to five or more at around 50 employees or so, but it was not possible to establish an exact threshold. In summary, with regard to the second RQ, a number of conclusions can be drawn, including the following:
168
For-profit organizations operating globally tend to increase the scope of responsibilities of the CCO and when the CCO has continental or global scope of responsibilities, the communication department tended to be integrated as a single department;
Global organizations with matrix structures appear to appreciate the role of the CCO and communication department more highly, having CCOs sit on the highestlevel management committees and valuing CCO inputs; and
While there is no direct relationship between the size of the organization and the size of the communication department, departmental size seems to be a more important variable when considering department structure.
RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication department structure? In summarizing our empirical findings for RQ 3 in Chapter 4, we found that “human endeavour” was a critical factor, in that communication department structure was a result of deliberate decision-making, on a regular basis every 1-3 years, primarily by the CCO (although the CEO played a primary or secondary role in many cases as well) and particularly when that CCO was newly hired (or secondarily when a new CEO was hired). On the other hand, there was little evidence of a relationship between how the communication department was organized and the size of the communication department or whether it was an integrated department, Turning first to explore the evidence from this study relating to the influences on deliberate decision-making about communication department structure, a number of key influences stood out that respondents saw as shaping communication department structures. The two most important factors (based on frequency of responses) identified were the leadership and management competencies of the department’s senior executives, and second, having the confidence and support of the organization’s senior executives (dominant coalition). Other factors cited included the mix of staff (specialists and generalists) employed, the length of the chain of command and span of control and even the notion of creating a ‘fun environment’ in which to work was acknowledged as important by around half the respondents.
169 But, it was also clear from the evidence that in the vast majority of cases, it was the CCO making and driving decisions about departmental structure, albeit with the sanction of authority derived from the organization’s senior management and one assumes her or his own management team. These executives were seen as representing a ‘new class of professionals’ working across the communication landscape. In most cases, the arrival of a new CCO was recognized as a catalyst for at least a review of the existing structure and, more often than not, a trigger for some degree of change in departmental procedures and / or structures. Of course, this does not mean that CCOs imposed structural change simply for its symbolic value - although undoubtedly in some cases reorganization did serve to signal a ‘new regime’ in charge of the department. Examining what the study suggests about the main factors that appear to drive organizational change within the communication function led to a number of both internal and external factors being identified. Externally, the full raft of ‘Pestle’-type factors (PESTLE: political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental) as well as competitive market forces seemed to come into play, shaping organizational choices about how best to configure operations and resources to respond to, or exploit, external opportunities and threats. Internally, drivers of change included organizational transformations to accommodate new businesses strategies such as downsizing of unprofitable businesses, or reshaping the business in response to market / industry change. Communication department restructuring might also reflect broader ideological changes within the organization as a whole that would be cascaded down throughout the functional structures. While other factors, both internal and external, undoubtedly can play a part in helping to shape structure, particularly in the short term as a response to immediate opportunities or threats, it may be organizational and departmental size that ultimately dictates many of the structural choices open to organizational and functional decisionmakers. The evidence from this study supports the literature in identifying ‘size’ as the key factor, but only in terms of organizational horizontal structures and communication department vertical structures. Size determines the number of levels of hierarchy as well as the organizational reach. The number of levels of hierarchy within the
170 organization itself was not a factor. The horizontal reach of the organization was a factor, particularly for continental or global, more decentralized, organizations. The importance of communication departments being ‘close to’ their internal clients becomes problematic in a large organization with extended horizontal reach. The size of the communication department, whether integrated or not, becomes a factor in determining a structure that supports dispersed internal clients. CCOs of communication departments with less than 25 employees inevitably were limited in the number of levels of stratification, and thus the number of managers and supervisors underneath them. Hence, it follows that they are limited in the options that they have to group employees into various horizontal organizational units (whether these units are organized by activities / services, stakeholders, internal clients, etc.) under one or more managers. Indeed, smaller communication departments, those under 10 or so employees, may not employ any ‘managers’ as such and have all staff members report directly to the CCO. Therefore, in departments of less than 25 employees, it is easy to see why leadership and management competencies would be key factors in making any ‘hybrid’ structure work. On the other hand, with larger departments numbering 50 to 100 or more staff members, the CCO will generally employ a number of managers, perhaps with supervisors under them, to control the workflow and the relationship between and among different units. In this type of work environment, the role of the CCO inevitable changes in terms of the degree to which they are able to organize specialists into dedicated units. Thus, in larger departments, there is the ability to organize and maintain specialized units, and to employ well qualified specialists. When thinking about the options open to CCOs for the organization of their communication departments, the number of horizontal options available will be relatively set, limited on the basis of such variables as by activities / services, by stakeholders, etc. On the other hand, the vertical options - or the number of levels of stratification available to the CCO tend to only increase as the size of the communication department increases. This, then, allows for greater specialization. In exploring the evidence relating to this RQ, it is important to recognize that responses spanned both the range of external as well as internal constraints and drivers
171 affecting functional structure and functional structure choices. Clearly, as we have already seen, the size and scope of the organization’s operations and hence of the resource often made available for communication activity was widely recognized as perhaps the key constraint affecting structural choice decisions. In summary, with regard to the RQ 3, these conclusions can be drawn:
The role of the CCO is a critical factor in making choices and determining a structure for the communication department;
The size of the organization, in particular the horizontal reach of the organization, is a critical factor in determining a structure for the communication department; and
The size of the communication department itself, in relation to the number of levels of stratification possible, is a critical factor in determining a structure for the communication department.
RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy? In summarizing our empirical findings for RQ 4 in Chapter 4, we found an ambiguous link between communication department structure and organizational efficacy. It was a case of on the one hand and on the other hand, since there were indicators that suggested a link and there were indicators that suggested that there was not a strong link. Certainly, we found that there was not a strong relationship between a certain organizational structure - except for a matrix structure - and whether the CCO reported to the CEO, whether CCOs sat on the highest-level committee, whether CCO inputs were valued and whether the current structure of the communication department facilitates department support of the organization. Although each of the seven RQs examines a separate but related facet of the research project, it is perhaps this RQ more any other that touches on the central purpose of the study and hence warrants careful consideration of the significance of the findings relating to this RQ. Clearly establishing the extent to which organizational structure, let alone communication department structure, might directly contribute to organizational efficacy
172 was always likely to prove challenging, primarily because as both the literature and this research has confirmed, structure remains one of only a number of variables that impact on organizational performance. Here one related recurring question is that which surrounds the relationship between strategy and structure and which ‘takes precedence’. The views of the respondents in the study were divided over whether organizational strategy or structure was more important in determining the effectiveness of the communication department’s work. The majority of respondents, not surprisingly, supported the view that having the ‘right‘ structure could impact very positively on department performance. Of course, the question then becomes what is the ‘right’ structure, and as we have highlighted earlier, no one universally effective structure for communication departments emerged. Rather, what was the appropriate structure for one organization might not work for others, even within the same industry or sector. In essence, structure seems to have a ‘situational dimension’ needing to reflect the particular circumstances of each organization and its own organizational structure and its position within its markets / industry. And, as we have noted, for the majority of CCOs in this study, the ‘situational dimension’ was, in part, the circumstances they had to consider in making decisions when determining the number and type of units within the department they would create. The ‘right’ structure, then, was the best horizontal configuration of units and the degree to which each unit was appropriately specialized (such as by activity / service, stakeholder or internal client) that was suitable given the present circumstances. Interestingly, despite these arguments about the situational nature of functional structures, the study found that a majority of CCO executives operate within, what might be termed, conventional and well-established and recognized organizational structures, predominantly U form, M-form or matrix-type structures, with very little evidence of any of the newer, more flexible ‘hollow’ or ‘virtual’ structures or even of the older, simpler, form. Of course, it may be misleading to assume that such organizational structures necessarily will be mirrored in the way the respective communication departments are configured - since, as we have already seen, in the vast majority of cases, communication departments generally number less than 25 and in most cases less than 10 people which probably renders any discussion of conventional structural
173 configuration difficult. Hence, it is only in a relatively small number of cases (around 6-7 per cent of the sample) where the number employed in the communication function would be likely to be sufficiently large (over 50 employees) to merit any meaningful discussion of both the vertical and the horizontal structural configurations of the department. As we have discussed, larger communication departments favour organizing by internal client together with organizing by technical activity / service, which suggests that larger departments attempt to closely resemble the overall organizational structure. To address this particular RQ about the link between communication department structure and organizational efficacy, it is first necessary to establish whether or to what degree the communication function does have any influence on organizational decisionmaking structures and actions. As was highlighted in the earlier literature review, despite strong advocacy that communication / public relations should be represented and have a direct input to senior management decision-making (e.g. Grunig, Grunig and Dozier, 2002), very little evidence can be found to suggest that specific functional and organizational structures might affect the ability of communication professionals to make such input. It is only in the one example we found - where CCOs working in matrix structured organization had a greater propensity, than CCOs working under other structures, to be a member of the top executive committee, to have their inputs valued and to lead an integrated department - where a connection, and limited at that, can be made. As we have pointed out, very little attention has been paid to the question of ‘structure’ per se. Thus, it is very difficult to draw any substantive conclusions about how alternative functional and or organizational structures might affect the way in which the communication / public relations function is able to contribute to organizational performance and success. It might be important to draw a distinction and clarify the relationship between the issues of communication efficiency and its contribution to organizational efficacy. Discussion of these concepts can become confused with the issue of communication representation and influence amongst the dominant coalition in organizations.
174 Indeed, arguably much of the discussion around communication / public relations contribution to organizational performance has tended to focus on the issue of ‘representation’ at the most senior levels. The assumption here has been that structural configurations that facilitate rather than inhibit functional input to the senior management team (dominant coalition) are going to enhance the likelihood of communication / public relations contributing significantly to organizational efficacy. From this perspective, it might be argued that the more integrated and centralized structures would be more likely to facilitate direct communication department input to senior management, rather than those where the communication / public relations function is perhaps dispersed and decentralized across the organization. The potential danger here is confusing structural effectiveness in terms of the communication / public relations function’s ability to exercise influence and power within the organization, with what constitutes the most efficient and effective structure for managing the organization’s communication activities and its interaction with its stakeholders. Some, albeit limited, evidence emerged from this study of this potential conflict between structural efficacy in terms of enabling the communication function to have close engagement with stakeholders across what might be in some cases quite geographically dispersed operations, and having a strong centralized communication presence close to the senior decision-making body of the organization. This potential conflict between operation efficacy and representation presence (power and influence) was particular felt in larger geographically dispersed, international organizations. The decentralized communication function, located closer to where stakeholder engagement occurs in each of the organization’s markets, has become increasingly recognized as the most effective structure. Of course, a decentralized operational structure does not preclude the most senior communication executives from having direct representation / input to the organization’s senior management team. Evidence from across the sample revealed that whatever the structure in operation, CCO respondents repeatedly underlined the importance of establishing and maintaining lines of communication into the senior management team. Again, when reviewing the literature on this theme, we found very little guidance or even discussion on the specific topic of communication department structures, and
175 whether they might have any effect on organizational let alone communication department performance. The main focus seems to be on ‘reporting structures’ and the issue of communication representation at the senior management level. As we have suggested earlier, the lack of emphasis on structure in the communication function context may well be attributed to the predominantly small size of most communication departments. For example, we showed earlier that more non-profit CCOs than for-profit CCOs reported to the CEO. Yet, the non-profit CCOs led, on average, smaller communication departments than did for-profit CCOs. However, size of department per se may not be the only or even the most important factor determining the influence that the function and its CCO may have on senior management decisions affecting organizational success. Rather the key factor(s) may come down to the competence and respect to which the individual CCO commands amongst the senior management team within their organization - what they are seen to be able to ‘bring to the table’. Thus, the issue of communication function effectiveness in terms of contributing to organization performance may come down to recruiting and retaining highly competent and respected professionals to CCO roles, and then ensuring they do have the necessary access to the decision-making loci within the organization so that their ‘voice‘ can be heard in key decision-making circles. In this study, we found that many CCOs have already established this link within their organizational structures, with 19 out of 24 CCOs who participated in the interviews reporting directly to the CEO and also having a seat at ‘the top table’. However, while many appeared to be happy with their structural arrangements, they still reported that exercising influence required sensitive handling of the many issues to be worked through - politics, socio-cultural factors, personal relationships, etc. As well, as we noted earlier, CCOs in the survey reported on the importance of leadership and management expertise among their communication department executive team. Certainly, CCOs seem to recognize the correlation between their competence and communication representation at the senior management level in the organization. In a range of cases (though not the majority in this study), communication departments were found to be reporting to, and through, other functional areas.
176 Interestingly enough, for the approximate 44% of CCOs who reported through other functions, there was no single dominant function through which the majority of these CCOs reported. Only slightly more than 6% of CCOs reported to the Head of Marketing (Chief Marketing Officer), while almost the same small percentage reported through the Chief Human Resources Officer as the Chief Strategic Planning Officer as the Head of an Operational Unit as the Chief Marketing Officer. In such cases, it is clear that it is a challenge for the communication and public relations Heads to ensure that they have consistent access to the highest levels of the organization. Certainly, the merits / disadvantages of communication being subsumed by Marketing has been a recurring topic for years in the public relations / communication literature. Clearly, from the evidence of this study, the issue of the communication function reporting to the Head of another function is one that continues to impact on the efforts of CCOs to build or establish their standing and credentials with the dominant coalition within their respective organizations. As well, this situation is reinforced by the fact that only half the CCOs in this study had a seat on the highest-level management committee. It is important to reflect on the power that the communication department, represented by the CCO, might have at the corporate ‘senior management table’. There was plenty of evidence and comments about the type of senior management reporting relationship that CCO valued or aspired to have and the importance they attributed to having some degree of power in the boardroom. Here, however, we were unable to assess or measure in any meaningful manner differences in the extent of CCO power or autonomy vis-à-vis their organization’s senior management team. The absence of any uniform, recognized position for the communication function and for CCOs in terms of standing in the corporate hierarchy was again acknowledged by a quite a number of respondents to the survey, some of whom pointed out that on occasion there was a risk that other functional areas perceived communication only as a service area rather than as a strategic partner. Hence, the emphasis that virtually all CCOs placed on maintaining as close a relationship as possible with senior decision makers, and hence the importance of the reporting and access structures within organizations. This was reinforced by, as departments grew in size, in the desire to organize groups within the communication department as account teams to internal clients or internal business
177 partners. Some of this standing within executive ranks could be achieved through a close advisory and support relationship with executives as internal clients/partners, if it could not also be had through direct reporting to the organizational Head and/or a place on the highest level executive committee. Finally, in considering how the structure of the communication department might impact on organizational efficacy, it may be important to acknowledge that ‘communication’ can cover an extensive portfolio of activity that can impact on many aspects of organizational performance. Here, for example, respondents in this study identified a broad range of disciplines for which they had responsibility, spanning areas such as: external corporate communications, public relations and reputation management; internal / employee communication; marketing communication and advertising; government relations and public affairs; issue and crisis management; corporate social responsibility; and web-based communication to name just the most commonly cited areas. (As noted earlier, social media was not part of the list of disciplines in the on-line survey, but would today be an important addition to the list.) This extensive list of activities clearly illustrated the challenges facing professionals seeking to build effective operations in communication department settings. The CCO may often face the difficult decision of whether to try to employ specialists for each of these disciplines, or whether to attempt to group specialists into specialized units. Of course, not all respondents were handing all these activities, at least not at the same time, but the majority of communication departments in the survey did have many or most of these disciplines and, as such, could be considered ‘full service’ operations. As we have noted, it is easier for a CCO to organize a larger communication department in order to offer a broad range of these disciplines in-house than it would for a CCO leading a smaller department. Nevertheless, in terms of efficacy, the extent of the list points up the range of the skill sets that may be required in order to perform these communication department responsibilities effectively, and again emphasizes the importance of having the right mix of skilled people staffing the departments.
178 Of particular relevance to this RQ was the set of key success factors that CCOs identified as important in helping make the PR/Communication department a high performing one:
Having a department where people recognizes the need to operate as strategic thinkers, helping the organization understand and achieve business goals by working at the strategic management level of the organization and providing strategic business advice not simply communication advice;
Having sufficient talented staff, with a combination of competent generalists and specialists;
Having the resources, particularly the number of employees, needed to be able to perform at the level requested;
Integrating policies, guidelines, processes, strategy, plans, accountabilities, training and resources across all communication units;
Having direct access to the top executives and having their confidence and support (already alluded to above);
Having a forward thinking vision, a strategic plan with clear goals and a measurement framework with clear KPIs for the communication function; and
Having sufficient flexibility to respond quickly and to mobilize and move resources as required. Thus, in summary, structure, be it the organizational or the departmental
structure, appears to be only one of the factors affecting efficient operation of the communication function. A range of different horizontal structural variations were found to exist, although favouring more conventional / traditional forms rather than some of the more organic and flexible forms of structure that have been advocated in the organizational literature in recent years. However, there was no conclusive evidence about whether any particular department structure helped to improve the way the communication function contributed to overall organizational performance: rather, appropriate structural choice appears very much determined by ‘situational factors’ and circumstances. Moreover, we also highlighted the potential confusion between issues of communication efficiency and its contribution to organizational efficacy. The need to distinguish between the structural implications for communication representation and
179 operational efficacy was also highlighted. Again, the study suggests that while department structure was acknowledged to impact on some aspects of operational efficacy, the issues of department size and the competence of the people employed continued to surface throughout discussions with CCOs. The need to employ and work with the best people almost irrespective of what structures are in place was a recurring refrain in the data. Of course, this does not mean that CCOs ignored or saw no value in considering the question of organizational alignment of the communication function with the organizational structure. However, the overriding emphasis here appeared more about how far structures facilitated or inhibited their access to the organizational decisionmaking structures, rather than to how structure might impact on the operational effectiveness of their communication department. Indeed, it is perhaps significant that 75% of the sample responses from both the for-profit and the not-for-profit CCOs felt that the structure in which they currently operated was broadly conducive for the accomplishment of their communication goals. This broad satisfaction with the existing organizational form in which they operate may indicate that many CCOs see no need for any immediate structural change, or may indicate that any structural change required to improve operational effectiveness has already taken place, or indeed is continuing to take place through a process of continuous incremental review. In summary, with regard to the RQ 4, we can draw these conclusions:
There was not a strong relationship between any organizational structure - except for a matrix structure - and the ability of the CCO and communication department to affect organizational efficacy (such as whether the CCO reported to the CEO, whether CCOs sat on the highest level committee, whether CCO inputs were valued and whether the current structure of the communication department facilitates department support of the organization);
There was no conclusive evidence about whether any particular department structure helped to improve the way the communication function contributed to overall organizational performance, since departmental structural choice appears to be determined by ‘situational factors’.
180 RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions? In summarizing our empirical findings for RQ 5 in Chapter 4, we found a “somewhat mixed picture.” This mixed picture depends on a number of factors: the existence of regionally based units; a single, integrated communication department; and the type of reporting relationships of regionally based communications units to the CCO. We found evidence of a significant relationship between the size of the for-profit organization and the scope of its operations (the larger operated across more geographical regions); between whether the CCO in for-profit organization had continental or global scopes of responsibilities and had regionally based communication units and whether the communication department was integrated into a single department; and between whether regionally based communication departments report to the CCO or not and the loci for where strategy development that affect regional operations are developed. In reviewing the evidence relating to this RQ, it may be useful to start by reiterating the fact that the sample from which evidence was derived included a reasonable representation of internationally based communication departments. Although the representation of communication headquarters was strongest in terms of North and Latin America and Europe, and comprised limited Asian or African representation, arguably this pattern does tend to reflect the balance power in terms of where the major communication headquarters are currently located, and equally may reflect the still emerging recognition of the importance of communication functions on the Asian and African continents, certainly by indigenous for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. When examining the pattern of communication function structures found in organizations operating across a number of geographic locations, generally this meant that the focus was on the larger organizations operating on an international / global basis. In this study, two-thirds of the organizations that participated in the on-line survey operated in more than two countries, while approximately 46% operated in 11 or more countries. It is important to acknowledge that there were a large percentage of
181 respondents that hailed from western settings - predominantly from North America and Europe - and this might well reflect a Euro-North American-centric focus for large continental or global for-profit organizations. (The degree to which this paradigm may change with the increasing impact of the emergent economies is something that clearly will warrant careful monitoring in the future). In comparison, only 42% of CCOs had a continental or global scope of responsibilities. Thus, a number of continental or global organizations either did not have regionally based communication operations or any regionally based communication operations were not the responsibility of the CCO. There is, however, a degree of ambiguity surrounding these figures relating to international representation of communication functions. It is necessary to distinguish between regionally based communication departments located in countries different to where the HQ communication department is based, and regionally based communication departments that report directly to HQ CCO, which in the latter case, to all intents and purposes, operate as if part of the central HQ communication function. The latter situation was found to exist in around 31 per cent of cases. Therefore, approximately 70% of regionally based communication departments reported either functionally to the HQs CCO or not at all. Reviewing the available evidence from this study, it seems clear that it offers only a partial response to this RQ. For instance, whether regional communication report to the CCO or not appears to provide a strong indication. In 31% of cases, the regional communication departments report directly to a HQs CCO. There is also evidence of a strong relationship between reporting directly and an integrated department and the development of a single international communication strategy. Can one assume, therefore, that direct reporting, an integrated, single department and a single international communication strategy would lead to a constant regional communication department structure across all regions? Probably, since having a common internal organizational structure across different geographic regions would seem reasonable, but the survey did not provide the granularity needed to make a definitive declaration. Certainly, there is limited or no evidence of a constant regional communication department structure across all regions for regionally based communication
182 departments that report to the CCO functionally, for they seem to produce a nonintegrated department in the majority of cases as well as the development of separate international communication strategies, ‘localized’ for each region. Of course, in situations where the regionally based communication department doesn’t report to the CCO, either directly or functionally, neither is there integration nor collective development of a communication strategy. Strategies are developed for each region by the region independently. While the study offers some insights into the differences in the way power is distributed and exercised in the communication context in a crosssection of organizations operating in different geographic locations and / or cultures, there was limited evidence to suggest that geographical location has exercised any significant influence on the structure of communication departments. The size and scope of the regional operations and the preferred type of reporting arrangement appear to play a far greater role in maintaining a relatively common approach across different regional offices. More specifically, the findings indicate that structure tends not necessarily to be constant among different organizations across the same geographic areas. In other words, there is no strong evidence of a particular structure playing out across the same geographical region. It might appear logical to find that individual organizations would have a reasonably common internal organizational structure across different geographic regions, but there appears to be limited evidence that what works for one organization would necessarily work for others. While one organization may employ a common structure for its various regions, other organizations may employ different structures across the same regions. Almost regardless of the organizational structure, it is possible to observe quite varied localized practices in relation to the implementation of communication policy which itself may have been determined centrally by the HQ function. Thus, while organizational and thus communication department structures may remain relatively consistent across an organization’s regional operations, processes and practices may reflect local priorities and conditions. As will be discussed, this pattern also emerged in relation to following RQ 6. Thus, on balance, a range of inter-firm differences emerged in the way that operations are conducted over geographic space. These may well be
183 linked, to some degree, to structural norms within the given industries in which the communication operations reside or to region or country cultural practices. While the research did not indicate either conclusively, it did show that what is more homogenous, it would seem, are the intra-firm differences (i.e. within a given organization). In summary, with regard to the RQ 5, we can draw these conclusions:
There is no evidence of inter-firm communication department structural similarities for organizations operating in the same region;
There is limited evidence, restricted to when regionally based communication departments report directly to a CCO, of the possibility of in intra-firm communication department structural similarities across geographical regions.
RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication department structures, what are they? In summarizing our empirical findings for RQ 6 in Chapter 4, we found that neither the geographical location of the HQs for the organization nor the business sector the organization was in influenced the choice of structure or affected differences in communication department structure. Clearly RQ 5 and 6 explore similar issues and there is much common ground between the two questions. However, while RQ 5 focused on areas of similarity and consistency in the communication structures and practices across geographic regions, RQ 6 shifts the focus to explore areas of potential variety and difference rather than similarity or homogeneity. The qualitative interview data revealed that those organizations identified as operating on a worldwide / global basis employed a variety of structural forms, although predominantly U-form, M-form and matrix structures, and in the main, the communication function structure appeared to broadly mirror the organizational structure. However, because of the relatively small numbers involved, no generalizable conclusions about the link between the global scope of an organization’s operation and the form of organizational or functional structure adopted can be drawn, other than the inference that the larger and broader the scope of the organization’s operations, generally the more complex the form of structure found in place. Here a cautionary note
184 is needed, as we have emphasized elsewhere in this report, the vast majority of forprofit and not-for-profit communication departments in our sample are relatively small and the majority does not operate on a continental or global scale (although over half their parent organizations do, particularly in the for-profit sector). As we have also pointed out, the survey sample for this study contained, if anything, a disproportionate number of larger international / global organizations (around 30 per cent) compared to what one would typically expect to find in the population as a whole. As such, the study arguably offers some useful insights into the structural configuration that may be typically found in place in globally based organizations and globally based communication functions. Interestingly, we found little evidence of any single dominant organizational structural model, although U-Form and Matrix structures were the most common forms found both at an organizational and communication department level. Of course, as was pointed out in presenting the findings in Chapter 4, the fact that organizations may operate on a global scale need not mean that the headquarters and / or individual regional communication departments will necessarily be any larger nor structured differently from that found in organizations operating perhaps only at a national or regional level. Clearly, one might expect that the overall size and scope of the communication function in globally based organizations would grow commensurately with the expansion of the organization’s operations, but in some cases this might be reflected in a larger HQ communications department, whereas in other more decentralized organizations any expansion of the communication function might be through the creation of additional local regional communication offices. The question then is, as we discussed earlier, whether communication strategy is managed centrally from the organization’s communication headquarters, or devolved to a regional local level, albeit with a broad guideline and control from the centre. We found little evidence of what might be described as any specific ‘global communication structure’ characterizing the operation of the communication function in globally based organizations. Rather, we observed a variety of structural configurations for the communication function, which in some cases mirrored that of the parent organization, whereas in other cases perhaps reflected more individual preferences of decision-
185 makers, as well as situational considerations. We have insufficient evidence to come down firmly in favour of one explanation over others for how individual globally based organizations have configured their communication functions. On balance, therefore, the evidence suggests that the location and the global scope of an organization does not necessarily determine or perhaps even influence the communication department structure. Of course, geographical and market expansion create new challenges for communication both internally and with external stakeholders. However, whether these challenges require a ‘structural solution’ at least in part is unclear at this stage. The evidence of this study is that most global organizations seem perfectly happy to operate through existing structures, but will review those structures when they see a need for change in the way communication is organized and managed, at least in the immediate term. In summary, with regard to the RQ 6, we can draw these conclusions:
Any differences in the structure of communication departments with global scopes of responsibilities are situational, reflecting the needs of individual communication departments and not reflecting organizational factors such as HQs location or business sector.
RQ 7: Is It Possible For There To Be A Universally Effective Communication Department Structure? In summarizing our empirical findings for RQ 6 in Chapter 4, we found that there wasn’t a communication department structural model that was universally effective. From the extensive preceding discussions for RQs 1-6, it was apparent that despite the considerable volume of data gathered from organizations based on continents around the world, it has not proved possible to identify a single universally effective communication function structure. What is clear is that a range of wellestablished and well-rehearsed organizational structural forms is in operation across the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. This is particularly apparent when examining the larger scale organizations, and especially those operating in the for-profit sector. The fact that the data from the current study does not identify a universally effective communication function structure does not of course preclude the possibility
186 that some form of universal model might exist. However, given the variety of possible forms of structure that we have identified, it would seem that the identification of a universal model is not be possible. What communication departments have in common is a core set of communication disciplines (external communication; internal communication; media relations; issues management; and web communication – to which we could probably now add social media communication). They also have in common that they organize horizontally by technical activities / services first, followed by second (or in parallel if the department’s scope of responsibility includes a global reach) by organizing by internal client and then by stakeholders. But then, any commonalities stop. Simply, there are too many factors to consider when organizing horizontally (what activities / services to provide; how many specialists to employ; how to group these specialists into units; how many account executives, for which clients; how many stakeholders should have dedicated specialists; should we add specialists for research, planning or measurement, for reputation management, for corporate social responsibility; etc.). Add to this the need to organize vertically (how many strata are required; how many supervisors, of which units; how many managers of how many supervisors; etc.). Add to this the need to organize across the overall communication function (Is the CCOs communication department the only communication department at HQs or are there others for disciplines such as internal communication or marketing communication; do these departments report to the CCO functionally or not at all; are there regionally based communication units; do they report to the CCO directly, functionally or not at all). Then add to whom the CCO reports directly and/or functionally and whether the CCO is a member of management committees and which ones. In summary, with regard to the RQ 7, we can draw this conclusion:
There is not a universally effective communication department structure because there isn’t a universal communication department structure. All communication department structures are hybrids, paralleling the individuality of organizations and the different communication needs within each.
187
Chapter 6 Discussion of the Literature Review Themes The first step in this study was to conduct a review of the relevant literature on the subject of organizational and departmental structure, which helped inform the design of our fieldwork and the type of questions that the study asked of respondents. Here at the outset of this chapter’s discussion, it is important to reinforce the point made earlier in the study, namely that the rarity of communication / public relations literature focusing specifically on the issue of organizational and departmental structure and how it might impact on communication / public relations management. As a consequence, we turned to explore commentary on the issue of structure found more within the general organization and management literature. However, as we remarked earlier, most of the discussion on the issue of structure has taken place in relation to the organization as a whole, rather than as it might manifest itself at the function, department or unit levels. Any hoped for discussion of structure in the communication / public relations departmental context was not forthcoming. Thus, it is with these caveats that we embark upon this attempt to synthesize the findings of this study with the extant literature base. With this preamble in mind, we can proceed to explore the conclusions that emerged from this study. In each case, we will attempt to relate the eight relevant themes we identified in our literature review to the findings for each RQ from the empirical study. More specifically, we attempt to relate these themes to the relationships that emerged from our analysis of the empirical data gathered during this study. We seek to draw out the significant inferences and conclusions relevant to the main themes uncovered in our review of the literature. Themes of the Literature Review From our review of the available literature, the eight themes that we identified as particularly important for the development of this study’s research questions and for our fieldwork were as follows:
Structural change occurs over time;
188
From a traditional perspective, the key dimensions of structure comprise complexity, specialization, centralization and configuration;
From the configuration perspective, five key structural models dominated the literature: Simple Form; U Form; M Form; Matrix Form; and Virtual Form;
The significance of both organizational and communication department size emerged as the key initial determinant of department structure ;
The need to recognize that structure and structural choice decisions are contingent on a range of factors (rather than simple cause-and-effect relationships) not the least being the role of the human agents involved;
The significance of the international / global scope of an organization’s operations on structural choice decisions and functional structures;
The significance of organizational and societal culture in shaping functional structures;
The significance of individual perceptions amongst key decision-makers (as opposed to, and in relation to, wider agents in the organization) responsible for determining structural options. First, we will cross walk each major theme we identified in the literature with the
relevant cross tabulations for all RQs, examining any evidence of significant or insignificant relationships between various variables that we discovered in our field research into each RQ. This chapter is structured around the eight major themes from the literature review. There is no order to the presentation, in that they are not listed in any order of importance or priority.
Structural Change Occurs Over Time The first major theme we found in the literature was the relationship of time to organizational structure. Our research was a snapshot in time and not a study that had the luxury of tracing communication department structure over time. Yet, we found that a majority of CCOs review their departmental structure every one to three years. Those reviews may or may not produce structural change but obviously the importance of adapting structure over time to new situations and conditions is well engrained with most CCOs. As noted in Figure 6.1, a significant relationship is not apparent between
189 any given form of communication department structure and the way in which the department’s structure was determined, suggesting that these reviews - over time - may take on an approach unique to each review. CCOs appear to understand the positive consequences that come from regular reviews of communication department structure, given the significant relationship between how often CCOs conduct reviews and their perception that the current department structure facilitates the department’s ability to support the organization. Figure 6.1: Literature Theme: Structural Change Occurs Over Time Research Questions
The More Important Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research
RQ 1: RQ 2: RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication function structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between how the communication department was organized and the way in which the department’s organization was determined.
RQ 4: RQ 5: RQ 6: RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication function structure?
There was evidence of a significant relationship between how often organizations reviewed their communication department and a CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities.
An issue that merits more careful consideration given these findings is how far communication department structures remain relatively immutable or open to change. Evidence from the study does seem to suggest that structural change over time was common and in fact, communication departments are as prone to changing structure as many other departments might be. In fact, they may be more so, in that in their need to be ‘close to’ internal clients, a CCO may have to consider structural adaptation every time a client transforms organizationally or chooses a new business strategy. Interestingly enough, since the majority of communication departments have similar
190 responsibilities (external communication; internal communication; issues management; media relations; web; etc.) and since the majority of communication departments have less than 25 employees, then any structural change may be more a question of ‘tinkering’ with horizontal structure, the re-organization of the small specialized units that deliver on these basic responsibilities, than it is a question of wholesale change in hierarchy or reporting structure. Here it is also important to recognize that particularly in larger organizations significant change is rarely accomplished ‘overnight’. Indeed, our evidence indicated that where change had occurred, it had been a gradual process rather than a radical or transformative one. While communication departments may review and reorganize on a regular basis, the number of organizational models available to the CCO is rather limited. Based on, albeit, largely anecdotal evidence, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a typical reorganization of a communication department will more often than not take the form of an adaptation to the current situation faced rather than involving the wholesale, transformative redesign and restructuring of the department. In summary then, structural change over time, as identified in our literature review, is a consideration CCOs must make in their need to maintain the ‘right’ structure and there is evidence that the majority of CCOs in this study are taking that consideration to heart. From the Traditional Perspective, the Key Dimensions of Structure Comprise Complexity, Specialization, Centralization and Configuaration A second major theme uncovered in the literature review was the importance of four concepts from the traditional school approach to organization. The traditional approach is a systems theory perspective, viewing organizations as closed systems rather than open systems and decomposing structure into a set of variables or dimensions for analysis. Four of those core variables are the following concepts: complexity; specialization; centralization; and configuration. Complexity refers to the extent of differentiation that exists within a particular organization or the number of different component parts. Differentiation is the degree to which work is divided up into ever smaller sets of operational activities / skills and then integrated into positions and/or units, either vertically or horizontally. We found in this
191 study that the vast majority of CCOs maintain a similar set of core disciplines (external communication; internal communication; media relations; issues management; web communication) and organize horizontally by first activities / services and then by internal client and stakeholder. Given the number of possible activities / services, internal clients and stakeholders for which a CCO could assign part of a position, a full position or even a number of positions in a unit, much as the literature suggested, a typical communication department is by its nature very differentiated. What we learned from the more relevant relationships listed in Figure 6.2 is that, while the communication department is extremely complex, there is no commonality to the organization of the variety common parts. Each communication department deals with complexity in a unique and customized way. Specialization is the degree to which an organization’s activities are divided into specialist roles. It is the type of specialized roles held by individual employees or a group of employees in a unit, with these roles categorized by the enactment of technical activities / services, by specific publics or stakeholder groups, by internal client group or even by departmental management processes. We found that the degree of specialization increased the larger the communication department grew. On the other hand, a small department may have a lower ratio of specialists to generalists because of the demands of complexity and differentiation required in providing, at the very least, as full a range of activities / services as possible and would have to assign a number of activities / services to each employee making the employee a generalist and not a specialist. As the literature suggested, specialization is an important consideration for a CCO, and as our research demonstrates, more so as the department increases in size. Centralization (or decentralization) is the degree to which power and control over decisions is held within the top management hierarchy. While our research described the power and control relationship of the CCO within the dominant coalition or the executive group in the organization (role of CEO in reviewing communication department structure; CCO reporting relationship with the CCO; CCO as a member of the executive committee; CCO input being valued), the research suggests that the CCO has a sizable degree of ‘power and control’ latitude over decisions affecting the organizing of the communication department itself. That latitude may not be as
192 pronounced, with either the positioning of the department in the organizational structure or to the integration of all communication departments or regional units into a single department. While the literature review identified centralization / decentralization as an apt theme, it appears that to fully appreciate the power and control dynamic (between the CCO and the CEO; between the CCO and to whom the CCO reports; between the CCO and each executive level internal client; between the CCO and the collective executive committee; etc.), additional research is necessary. For example, as in Figure 6.2, there doesn’t appear to be evidence of a significant relationship between to whom the CCO reports and a number of other variables. Configuration is the ‘shape’ of the organization’s hierarchical structure, including: the length of the chain of command for the CCO, managers and supervisors; and the span of control or how many subordinates the CCO, managers or supervisors control. What we learned from the research is that it appears that a communication department moves from two to three levels of stratification somewhere between nine and twelve employees. At that point, the single chain of command and broad chain of command of the CCO changes with the introduction of one or perhaps two supervisors reporting to the CCO. Similarly, the department acquires a fourth level of hierarchy somewhere between 25 and 30 employees. Up to 25 employees, the CCO can operate with two direct reports and these two supervisors may manage one, two or perhaps three small units each. But over that number, as complexity increases and the need to differentiate expands, the CCO would add one or two manager positions to increase the length of command and at the same time lessen the CCOs span of control. As can be read in Figure 6.2, the configuration of the communication department appears to be influenced more by the size of the department and the complexity of the departmental structure and not as much by reporting relationships, integration of the department, the CCOs scope of operations or the structure of the organization itself. Figure 6.2: Literature Theme: From a traditional perspective, the key dimensions of structure comprise complexity, specialization, centralization and configuration Research Questions:
The More Important Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research
193
RQ 1: Are there specific structures /models for communication departments?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between CCO’s sphere of operation and their involvement in the top core disciplines: external communication; media relations; internal communication; web communication; and issues/crisis management. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and the extent to which the communication department operates on an integrated basis.
RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication function structure and organizational structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between organizational structure and the top disciplines a communication department offered: external communication; media relations; internal communication; web communication; and issues/crisis management. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between organizational structure and the number of levels of hierarchy in the communication department. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between reporting relationships for the CCO and the organizing of the communication department (by services, internal client; stakeholder, etc.)
RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication function structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between how the communication department was organized and whether it was integrated as a single department.
RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO reported to the most senior executive.
RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the CCO’s reporting relationship and the scope of operations of its communication department.
RQ 6: RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication function structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between a CCO’s geographical sphere of operations and a CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities.
The literature suggested that configuration is an important consideration for a CCO, and as our research demonstrates, it is increasingly so as the department approaches possible thresholds.
194 From the Configuration Perspective, Five Key Structural Models Dominated the Literature: Simple Form; U Form; M Form; Matrix Form; and Virtual Form This, the third theme from our literature review, focuses on the five structural forms that we identified. The simple form and the virtual form structures were the least common in our research: examples of simple form were identified from our interviews but not from our survey and for virtual form, it was the other way round. For both, the number of examples was small. More common were U form, M form and matrix form, with U form and matrix form the most common in our survey. For CCOs in for-profit organizations, the evidence from the research suggests that working in an organization with a matrix structure may be the most beneficial. CCOs in these organizational structures seemed to have a wider sphere of influence. CCOs who work in matrixstructured organizations seemed to have a greater possibility of sitting on the highestlevel executive committee and of leading integrated departments than do CCOs who work under different organizational structures. Looking at structural change trends over time, as highlighted firstly in our literature review, there has been a migration over recent decades from traditional Uform structures to more divisional, matrix and configuration-type forms. It would appear that many communication departments have also followed this trend along with other support departments across the organization. For example, our survey findings show the existence of communication units outside of the primary communication department. Many or most of these may be in decentralized divisions. As well, attempting to organize ‘by internal client’ is the third most prevalent method for creating horizontal units in the communication department. Thus, the communication function seems to be adapting to a more devolved organization. But, we should note that this apparent move to parallel matrix like structures is much more prevalent for for-profit communication departments than for non-profit departments. Communication departments in not-for-profit organizations report a preponderance of U-form organizational structures. It is perhaps significant to note that most of the organizations we surveyed (220/278) were for-profit entities, which may well have implications for the adoption of specific departmental structures. The ‘picture’ that seems to have emerged is one that is largely associated with more commercial operations and more corporate divisional M-form and matrix form structures. As a for-
195 profit organization grows, it naturally adds business lines and therefore evolves divisionally. Moreover, because of this, for-profit organizations are likely to adopt a particularly different form as opposed to non-profits, which generally have a lesser number of businesses or business lines. To summarize, what the evidence points to here is that the size and the sector location (whether for-profit or non-profit) of the organization appears to play dominant influencing roles on structural configurations, and on characteristic choice behaviours that are reflected in communication departments that reside within these structures. Interestingly enough though, that after the matrix form structure, the next organizational structure that appeared to help the CCO was the U form structure - which is almost the polar opposite. So, while the literature identified these models as an important theme, our research findings were not clear to the extent that these models were factors in determining communication department structure. One possible answer to this dilemma of how to reconcile these two apparently contrasting perspectives of organizational and departmental structures, may lay, at least in part, in the notion of Conventional – Critical Hybrid Perspective of organizational / functional structure, explored earlier in our literature review. In this study, the evidence points to the dominant organizational structure being the more traditional and conventional perspective of U-, M- and matrix form of structure. However, the evidence also indicates that more alternative and critical forms and processes are in operation in the communication department and they are perhaps shaping departmental structural design moving into the future. The departmental hybrid form may be an attempt to recognize the emerging realities that many CCOs find themselves facing, being located in a traditional organizational structure yet requiring speed, unfettered access and immediacy that traditional structures can’t produce. In Figure 6.3, there is little evidence of an effect on the choice of organizational model on core disciplines, the number of levels of hierarchy, CCO reporting, whether CCO inputs are valued or whether the current structure of my department facilitates my department to support the organization. With regard to the number of levels of hierarchy, we also explored whether any relationship could be identified between levels of hierarchy within the communication department and the overall organizational
196 structural configurations. Again, functional size largely dictated the number of levels of hierarchy, with two to three levels being the most common arrangement in both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. This pattern was more or less typical across organizations irrespective of whether they were characterized as U-form, M-form or matrix structured entities. In short, there was no correlation between the type of organizational structure and the number of managers or supervisors under the CCO in the communication department. Figure 6.3: Literature Theme: From the configuration perspective, five key structural models dominated the literature: Simple Form; U Form; M Form; Matrix Form; and Virtual Form Research Questions:
The More Important Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research
RQ 1: RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication function structure and organizational structure?
For for-profit organizations, there was evidence of a significant relationship between a U-form structure and an organization operating in fewer than 10 countries and a matrix structure and an organization operating in over 10 but under 100 countries. Interestingly, this relationship was not apparent in for-profit organizations operating in more than 100 countries. No similar relationship was found for not-for-profit organizations. For for-profit organizations, there was evidence of a significant relationship between the CCO being a member of the highest-level management committee and working in a matrix form organizational structure. The majority of CCOs in non-profit organizations were members of the highest-level management committee, regardless of the form of organizational structure. There was evidence of a significant relationship between the integration of the communication department as a single department and U-form and Matrix organizational structures. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between organizational structure and the top disciplines a communication department offered: external communication; media relations; internal communication; web communication; and issues/crisis management. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between organizational structure and the number of levels of hierarchy in the communication department.
RQ 3: RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO reported to the most senior executive. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO’s inputs are valued and taken into account when organizational decisions are made. But, again, evidence
197 suggests that matrix form structures, followed by U-form, may tend to be more hospitable to the CCO. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the current structure of my department facilitates my department to support the organization. Again, evidence suggests that matrix form structures, followed by U-form, may tend to be more hospitable to the CCO. RQ 5: RQ 6: RQ 7:
The fact that the matrix form has been singled out bears some discussion. We described in our literature review a progression and development away from the hierarchical, heavily structured, mechanistic and rather inflexible configurations that characterized much of organizational design in the immediate post-WII era. These structures were developed to mass-produce in order to supply mass-markets and respond to the emergence of mass-consumerism and mass-communication (predominantly through emerging television means). The structures of the late twentieth century, and with which the communication function needs to contend, are prone to being more organic, flexible and open to adjustment and change - in order to respond to niche and customized markets and thus niche and customize communication. Although aspects such as hierarchy as well as divisional and functional structures are still, of course, very much in evidence in organizations, in the contemporary era, they exist in the spirit of being able to change in an adaptable and responsive many. For communication professionals, this means that their role is carried out in environments that are open to rapid and at times unpredictable change. In such variable global settings, gone are the certainties of readily available mass-markets and predictable hierarchical organizations. Instead, communication must take place, in both the internal and the external sense, in fast moving and dynamic organizational and market contexts. Therefore, dual or multi-reporting, organic and/or flexible structures may be positive for CCOs. That is, rigid reporting relationships, even if the ultimate reporting is to the CEO, based on vertical and silo type structure, may not give the CCO the dynamism and ‘unfettered access’ required in a very communicative organization.
198 With this caveat in mind, it is interesting to note that while the organizational literature has suggested a trend towards the adoption of more organic structures within contemporary organizations, little evidence was found within this study of any of the newer, more neural or organic forms of structure even amongst the larger organizations examined. This lack of any significant evidence of more neural or organic structures at the organizational level, let alone at the communication level, might be interpreted as demonstrating a conservative mindset and bias within the sample of organizations examined. Perhaps, this new thinking about structural forms has not penetrated amongst them, or at least not sufficiently enough to bring about change. On the other hand, it might well be that such claims for the growth of newer more organic and less conventional structures has been exaggerated, and hence the lack of evidence of their existence within the study is not particularly significant. Whatever the merits of such arguments and putative explanations for the relatively slow development of new communication department structural thinking, we believe that the views expressed across this study, which represent a reasonably wide-ranging and international cross section of organizations, suggest that the majority of communication departments are operating very much against a backdrop of what might be termed ‘conventional’ or ‘traditional’ organizational structures. The Significance of Both Organizational and Communication Department Size Emerged as the Key Initial Determinants of Department Structure The fourth major theme uncovered in the literature review was the importance of size. This issue is a recurrent factor, one that is well embedded in the literature. Indeed, the importance of organizational size as a determinant is present throughout the wider management and organization literature. To reiterate the argument made earlier, there is a longstanding message from Child that suggests that there are two main strands of causal argument relating size and structure (Child, 1972). The first says that increasing size offers more opportunities to reap benefits of increased specialization, which will manifest itself in terms of greater structural differentiation. As the number of sub-units and hence the complexity of management increases, senior management will need to impose a system of interpersonal controls and formal procedures. A second argument focuses on the problem of directing large numbers of people, which makes it
199 impossible to employ a personalized, decentralized style of management. Instead, the likelihood is that larger organizations may adopt a centralized system using impersonal mechanisms of control. Of course, as Child pointed out, the challenge of coping with large numbers of organizational members may be tackled by breaking large organizational units into smaller quasi-independent ones. The larger the organization, the larger the size of their functional units and the more numerous and distinct their business units or lines will be, allowing for greater experimentation in mixing and matching. Organizational size seems to be a de facto element in influencing the choice of a specific structure (following Mintzberg, 1989). As organizations expand divisionally and/or geographically, the tendency is to adopt multidivisional (M) form or matrix form structures. Second, the larger the organization, the more likely that the organization will reflect, or even imitate, similar organizational structures of comparably sized entities. This bent toward imitation or emulation of comparable organizational strictures may well reflect the more transparent nature of corporate activity nowadays and the rapid dissemination of ideas. For example, there have been a number of ‘fashionable’ trends in corporate restructuring in recent decades, perhaps most notably the rapid growth in the number of organizational ‘change’ or corporate ‘re-engineering’ programs that followed the popularization of the concept of re-engineering by Hammer and Champy, which sparked a widespread movement towards re-examining business processes and structures not just in the USA but around the world. Again, such concepts and associated processes are ones generally seen to be most relevant to larger, more mature organizations that may have the most to gain in terms of cost and efficiency savings from a radical review and reconfiguration of their structures and business processes. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that in exploring organizational structures and structural relationships, much of our discussion is inevitably framed and coloured by thinking dominated largely by normative international business models (Doole and Lowe, 2008). Even with the recent rapid growth of the Asian and Latin American economies, there appears to be a tendency for adoption of historic North American and North European approaches to structure generally. While there will always be local and regional cultural variation, the current hegemonic power of North
200 American and Anglo-European thinking on organizational structures and approaches cannot be under-estimated. The vast majority of organizations in our survey sample operated in more than one country, with approximately two-thirds in more than three, approximately a half in more than ten and approximately one third in more than twenty-five. Therefore, the majority of organizations work on an international basis, either continentally or globally, and much more so for for-profit organizations than non-profits. With regard to the size of the organizations in our sample, less than a third had 1000 employees or less, with just over a half having 5000 or fewer employees. Just less than a half had over 5000 employees, with 25% having more than 25,000. If anything, as discussed previously in this report, our sample skews towards organizations operating internationally and of a substantial size. One would assume from the discussion above about size and international scope that it also applies to communication department size and structural forms and that the communication department would copy organizational structures when the organization has international scope. With regard to size, there appears to be some semblance of a relationship between organizational size and communication department size. Approximately half of all organization had less than 5000 employees and half of all communication departments had less than 10 employees. Seventy-seven percent of CCOs had less than 25 employees, with 22% having more than 25. This can be compared to the approximate 75% of organizations with less than 25,000 employees and 25% with more than this number. But, as noted earlier, 42% of CCOs have responsibility for continental or global communication operations, suggesting that some organizations that operate internationally do not have regionally based communications or that regionally based communication is the responsibility of a regionally based department that is independent of the HQs communication department. Looking a Figure 6.4 following, we identified relationships between size of the forprofit organization and the scope of operations (global; continental; national; local/regional) of its communication department. Continental or global scope correlated with larger size organizations. The second relationship identified, in for-profit organizations again, was between a U-form structure and an organization operating in
201 less than 10 countries and a matrix structure and an organization operating in over 10 but under 100 countries. Finally, there was a significant relationship between the scope of responsibilities for the CCO and the number of countries in which a for-profit organization operated. To summarize, larger sized for-profit organizations operated in a greater number of countries, fostering increase to the international scope of the CCO, all the while under a matrix form structure for the organization. As we discussed in the last section, CCOs have a greater possibility to be a member of the highest-level executive committee and to lead an integrated department when in a matrix form structure. Figure 6.4: Literature Theme: The significance of both organizational and communication department size emerged as the key initial determinants of department structure Research Questions:
The More Important Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research
RQ 1: RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication function structure and organizational structure? RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication function structure?
For for-profit organizations, there was evidence of a significant relationship between a U-form structure and an organization operating in less than 10 countries and a matrix structure and an organization operating in over 10 but under 100 countries. Interestingly, this relationship was not apparent in for-profit organizations operating in more than 100 countries. No similar relationship was found for not-for-profit organizations. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the size of the communication department and how the department was organized.
RQ 4: RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions?
There was evidence of a significant relationship between size of the for-profit organization and the scope of operations (global; continental; national; local/regional) of its communication department.
RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication function structures, what are they?
There was evidence of a significant relationship between the scope of responsibilities for the CCO and the number of countries in which a for-profit organization operated.
Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations had less than 1000 employees and their communication departments only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship.
202 RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication function structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the size of the communication department and a CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities.
In summary then, the literature identified ‘size’ as a key theme. In particular, the size of the organization is a critical factor in determining the structure the communication department operates in as well as the scope of operations for the CCO. The Need to Recognize that Structure and Structural Choice Decisions Are Contingent on a Range of Factors (Rather than Simple Cause-and-Effect Relationships) The fifth major theme we found in the literature was the need to recognize that a range of factors influence decisions about communication department structure. One of the themes that emerged, primarily implicitly, in the review of the literature on organizational structure has been the influence of external environment pressures on organizational choices about the structural design. Certainly, environmental effect is not a single factor but a collective category of factors, including technological, political, social, financial, competitive, media, cultural, environmental, etc. As was described in the literature review, the greater the degree of environment complexity, variability and uncertainty, the greater the profusion of environment information that decision makers may need to cope with, and the greater the need for organizations to adopt more adaptive and responsive structures. Human agency is another category of factors, and that will be explored accordingly below. Mechanisms and systems (for work processes; for strategizing; for policy development; for communication, for control; etc.) are another category, as is size, which we examined above. Figure 6.5: Literature Theme: the need to recognize that structure and structural choice decisions are contingent on a range of factors (rather than simple causeand-effect relationships) not the least being the role of the human agents involved Research Questions:
RQ 1: Are there specific structures
The More Important Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and the basis for organizing staff.
203 /models for communication departments? RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication function structure and organizational structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between organizational structure and the top functions a communication department offered (external communication; media relations; internal communication; web communication; and issues/crisis management). There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between organizational structure and the number of levels of hierarchy in the communication department. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between reporting relationships for the CCO and the organizing of the communication department (by services, functions, internal client; stakeholder, etc.)
RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication function structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the size of the communication department and how the department was organized. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between how the communication department was organized and the way in which the department’s organization was determined.
RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO reported to the most senior executive.
RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the CCO’s reporting relationship and the scope of operations of its communication department.
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the current structure of my department facilitates my department to support the organization. Again, evidence suggests that matrix form structures, followed by U-form, may tend to be more hospitable to the CCO.
RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication function structures, what are they?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structural form of the organization and continental location for the headquarters of the communication department.
RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication function structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the size of the communication department and a CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities.
Of course, given our RQs and survey questions, we were never going to be able to examine many of these factors directly, only indirectly. Even so, would we be able to discover a simple cause and effect relationship with any one or any collective set of factors? If we inspect Figure 6.5, the answer would be that there is not a simple cause
204 and effect relationship for any factor. There was limited evidence to support any relationship, given our attempts to correlate various factors. Figure 6.5 only list some of the possible relationships studied, but this “limited evidence to support a significant relationship” phrase attached to the examples in Figure 6.5 transcends this sample. Rather, it seems that a range of factors are at play, as the literature suggested. In summary, the literature identified the need to recognize that structure and structural choice decisions are contingent on a range of factors as a key theme. That theme definitely was evident in this study. The Significance of the International / Global Scope of an Organization’s Operations on Structural Choice Decisions and Functional Structures The literature review identified the implications of the organization having an international / global scope of operations as a major theme. While there is a relationship between organizational size and organizational reach, it is organizational reach that is important here. As was discussed in the literature review, the attempt to service multiple markets and / or regions brings a greater degree of complexity. Frequently, organizations restructure to multidivisional [‘M’ form] form or matrix form structures to assist operations that now cross multiple product categories, markets and / or geographic locations. An important element of this increased complexity is the degree of centralization or decentralization for the organization’s command and control systems and whether one or multiple command structures (as in a matrix structure) are required. A further element would be the degree of geographical spread, the space between and among headquarters, markets and regions. Both the degree of centralization / decentralization and the degree of geographical spread may influence any issue of intra-firm difference leading to local structural and organizational adaption, an aspect of the so-called ‘globalization - glocalization’ debate. Our research found that a majority of CCOs in our sample work in organizations with an international reach, particularly those in the for-profit sector. Approximately onehalf of these CCOs are employed by organizations that operate in more than 10 countries. As we noted above, 42% of CCOs at HQs stated that they had responsibility for communication internationally, at either the global or continental levels. Our research showed a significant relationship between a for-profit organization with
205 international geographic reach and the size of the organization, a matrix structure for the organization, the CCO having an international scope of responsibilities and, where there are communication departments with headquarters and regionally based components in a matrix form organization, with a direct or functionally reporting of the regional component to the CCO as well as where and how communication strategies are determined (a combination of both HQs and regional components working together). It appears that, indeed, as the literature suggested, an international spread for the organization itself does have a related effect on the communication department. On the other hand, our research found limited evidence to suggest a significant relationship between a CCO’s scope of operations (global; continental) and their involvement in the core disciplines, the number of levels of hierarchy in the department, the basis for organizing staff, CCO reporting and the CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities. Nor was there any evidence of a relationship between the structural form of the organization (matrix for example) and the continental location for the headquarters of the communication department. Figure 6.6, following, hosts these relationships. Figure 6.6: Literature Theme: the significance of the international / global scope of an organization’s operations on structural choice decisions and functional structures Research Questions:
The More Important Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research
RQ 1: Are there specific structures /models for communication departments?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between CCO’s sphere of operation and their involvement in the core disciplines (external communication; media relations; internal communication; web communication; and issues/crisis management). There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and number of levels of hierarchy. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and the basis for organizing staff. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and CCO reporting.
RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication function structure and
For for-profit organizations, there was evidence of a significant relationship between a U-form structure and an organization operating in fewer than 10 countries and a matrix structure and an organization operating in over 10 but under 100 countries. Interestingly, this relationship was not apparent in for-profit organizations operating in more than 100 countries. No similar relationship was found for not-for-profit
206 organizational structure?
organizations.
RQ 3: RQ 4: RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions?
There was evidence of a significant relationship between whether regionally based communication departments in for-profit organizations report to the CCO or not and the loci for where communication strategies that affect regional operations are developed. There appears to be a strong correlation between the reporting arrangements of regional communication departments found in other countries in international organizations and the loci for communication strategy development. Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship. There was evidence of a significant relationship between whether the CCO had continental or global communication responsibilities and whether the communication department in for-profit organizations was integrated into a single department. Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship.
RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication function structures, what are they?
There was evidence of a significant relationship between organizational structure for for-profit organizations and the number of countries in which an organization operated. Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship. There was evidence of a significant relationship between the scope of responsibilities for the CCO and the number of countries in which a for-profit organization operated. Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structural form of the organization and continental location for the headquarters of the communication department. There was evidence of a significant relationship between the structural forms of the for-profit organization and where communication strategies are determined where there are communication departments with headquarters and regionally based components. Since the vast majority of not-for-profit organizations only operated on a local/regional or national basis, it was not possible to test any relationship.
RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication function structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between a CCO’s geographical sphere of operations and a CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities.
While an organization’s international geographic reach influences the CCOs scope of operation to become international, that international scope of operations does not, in itself, influence the structure of the communication department other than the department’s headquarters and regional components tend to be integrated. As discussed in the section on the theme size above, there appears to be a correlation
207 between an organization with international reach as expressed by the number of countries it operates in and the size of the communication department. But, here we found no relationship between the scope of operations of the CCO and the number of levels of stratification in the communication department – although there was a relationship between levels of hierarchy and department size. In summary, the literature identified the significance of an organization’s international reach. Subsequently, our research demonstrated the importance of this factor to communication departments, particularly those located in for-profit, matrix form organizations. Perhaps only tangentially, the importance of ‘proximity’ to the communication department’s clients is an important organizational factor, regardless of the decentralized nature of the organizational structure. The Significance of Organizational and Societal Culture in Shaping Functional Structures While the significance of organizational and societal culture is the seventh theme to be identified in the literature review, the literature review also established that there is a lack of a detailed examination of how culture might affect the development of organizational structure. The structural schools themselves (traditional; configurational; Critical Management Studies [CMS]) may be culturally bound, reflecting a Northern European and North American bias. Though they may take into account organizational and societal culture at headquarters, they may be blind to how regional or local cultural differences affect different structural forms. That said, CMS allows for organizational culture to be an important variable, more so than the other schools, since it does not see structure as just a physical form. As we proposed in the literature review, a traditional / conventional view of culture can be described as follows: “Culture within structure is seen as something ontologically solid that can be touched and manipulated by managers.” A critical view of organizational culture is different: “Culture within structure is seen as emergent, organic, ‘boundary-less’ and ever changing.” In the first, organizational culture is firm and something that can be manipulated with a top-down approach to direction and control; in the second, it is fluid, with a life of its own and difficult if not impossible to manage.
208 Our research did not address the concepts of organizational or societal culture and their influence on organizational or communication department structure directly. But looking at organizational culture indirectly, the characteristics of structural form may be a less than fully adequate substitute, but we did report above that our research did find a significant relationship between matrix form organizational structures and the CCO being a member of the highest-level management committee, the CCO’s inputs being valued and taken into account when organizational decisions are made and the CCOs direct or functional management of regionally based communication departments and of the loci for where communication strategies that affect regional operations are developed. Matrix form structures demonstrate these features: cross-functional teams; increased integration of functional specialists; a more-friendly environment for specialists; and a more, open, communicative organizational environment. A matrix form structure, then, represents a certain culture - or an integrated system of learned behavior patterns, social forms and customs. Other than this finding about matrix form structures that, indirectly, indicates the significance of a certain organizational culture that may be beneficial to a CCO and a communication function, we did not find anything other that may signify the importance of culture on structural choices. With regard to societal culture and in particular continental culture, we again approached the question of significance indirectly. Our research did attempt to look at the location of a communication department and thus an organization’s headquarters and the number of countries the organization operates in and sought to explore whether and country culture may impact on structural choice. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structural form of the organization and continental location for the headquarters of the communication department and presumably the organization itself. In particular, there wasn’t a significant relationship between matrix form structures and location. Given that the majority of organizations in our sample operated in more than one country, with approximately 50% operating in more than 10, and given that the majority of CCOs had direct or functional control over regionally based communication units where they existed and the development of strategy that applied regionally, one may hypothesis that any difference in the influence of societal
209 culture as represented as continental or even country culture was minimal across the organizations in our sample. Figure 6.7 lists a number of cross tabulations used in our research. Figure 6.7: Literature Theme: The significance of organizational and societal culture in shaping functional structures Research Questions:
The More Important Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research
RQ 1: RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication function structure and organizational structure?
RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication function structure? RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy?
For for-profit organizations, there was evidence of a significant relationship between the CCO being a member of the highest-level management committee and working in a matrix form organizational structure. The majority of CCOs in non-profit organizations were members of the highest-level management committee, regardless of the form of organizational structure. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between reporting relationships for the CCO and the organizing of the communication department (by services, functions, internal client; stakeholder, etc.) There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between how the communication department was organized and the way in which the department’s organization was determined.
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO reported to the most senior executive. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO sat on the highest-level executive committee. On the other hand, evidence suggests that CCOs in matrix or virtual form, for-profit organizations had a greater chance to be on such a committee, as did CCOs working in U-form or virtual form, not-for-profit organizations. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO’s inputs are valued and taken into account when organizational decisions are made. But, again, evidence suggests that matrix form structures, followed by U-form, may tend to be more hospitable to the CCO.
RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions? RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication function structures,
There was evidence of a significant relationship between whether regionally based communication departments in for-profit organizations report to the CCO or not and the loci for where communication strategies that affect regional operations are developed. There appears to be a strong correlation between the reporting arrangements of regional communication departments found in other countries in international organizations and the loci for communication strategy development. There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structural form of the organization and continental location for the headquarters of the communication department.
210 what are they? RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication function structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between a CCO’s geographical sphere of operations and a CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities.
In summary, the literature identified the possible significance of organizational and societal culture. Our research suggests that organizational culture may have an indirect part to play in the determination of organizational and communication department structure. Nothing, though, was found to indicate the significance of societal culture in determining structure. The Significance of Individual Perceptions Amongst Key Decision-Makers (as Opposed to, and in relation to, Wider Agents in the Organization) Responsible for Determining Structural Options The eighth and final theme identified in the literature review was that of the significance of key decision-makers in influencing structural choice. Both management and public relations scholars have acknowledged the intervention of human agency, particularly from a power / control perspective. Undeniably, a recurring factor throughout the literature relating to organizational and communication department structure is the importance of the choice determinations by senior management, the CEO especially, vis-à-vis functional or business unit management. The influence of key decision makers has been one of the key themes when trying to understand functional structures from a CMS perspective. Research leading to and as a part of the Excellence study also highlights the influence of top management or the dominant coalition in determining departmental structure. Certainly, the recognition that organizational structure is a product of ‘choice decisions’ taken by organizational leaders resonates in the literature. Our research found a similar reflection. When asked what had the greatest influence on communication department structure, the top three influences mentioned by the CCOs in our survey were: choice of the organization’s leadership (36%); growth and change in the size of the organization (36%); and organizational design thinking by the CCO (20%). The significance of senior leadership involvement was also highlighted
211 when we asked what factors helped make the current structure work, with CCOs saying: their own leadership competencies (58%); the support of senior leadership (57%); and their own and their managers’ management capabilities (53%). On the other hand, an analysis of a number of cross tabulations does not give such a clear-cut picture of the significance of a key decision-maker role in determining structure for the communication department. For example, there is little evidence of a significant relationship between whether the CCO reported to the CEO and the CCO’s scope of operation, the organization of the communication department (by services; internal client; stakeholder; etc.); or the structure of the organization overall. Even more importantly, there didn’t appear to be a relationship between how the communication department was organized and the way in which the department’s organization was determined; between how the communication department was organized and whether the structure of the department was reviewed periodically and between how often organizations reviewed their communication department and a CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities. Figure 6.8 provides these relationships. Figure 6.8: Literature Theme: the significance of individual perceptions amongst key decision-makers (as opposed to, and in relation to, wider agents in the organization) responsible for determining structural options. Research Questions:
The More Important Relationships Identified from the Quantitative Research
RQ 1: Are there specific structures /models for communication departments?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the sphere of operation and CCO reporting.
RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication function structure and organizational structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between reporting relationships for the CCO and the organizing of the communication department (by services, functions, internal client; stakeholder, etc.)
RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between how the communication department was organized and the way in which the department’s organization was determined.
212 communication function structure?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between how the communication department was organized and whether the structure of the department was reviewed periodically.
RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO reported to the most senior executive.
RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions?
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the CCO’s reporting relationship and the scope of operations of its communication department.
There was limited evidence of any significant relationship between the structure of the organization overall and whether the CCO’s inputs are valued and taken into account when organizational decisions are made. But, again, evidence suggests that matrix form structures, followed by U-form, may tend to be more hospitable to the CCO.
RQ 6: RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication function structure?
There was evidence of a significant relationship between how often organizations reviewed their communication department and a CCO’s perceptions of the extent to which the current structure of their department facilitates or impedes the communication department’s ability to support the organization’s strategies and activities.
Thus, CEOs have a degree of influence - whether the CCO reports directly or not. But, this key decision-maker influence on structure may be limited to choices about the reporting arrangement of the CCO, the integration of the function or not (both at headquarters and between headquarters and the regions) and the resourcing and thus the size of the communication department. Otherwise, it seems that the CCO has greater latitude determining structure within the communication department itself, relating to decisions on scope of operation (local / regional; national; continental; global), the organization of the communication department (by services; internal client; stakeholder; etc.) and the levels of stratification. While there has been emphasis in the literature on the importance of the CCO’s functional reporting relationship vis-à-vis the top management team, especially to the CEO, in our research CCOs claimed to have a direct reporting relationship to senior management almost irrespective of the organizational structure in place. Various research studies over the past decade report that anywhere between 50 and 60% of CCOs report directly to the CEO or the organizational head and that a large percentage of CCOs who don’t report directly to the CEO report they have access to the CEO and
213 attend senior management meetings. Of course, what is far from clear is just how much influence CCOs may have within the senior management decision making processes, whether any such influence might vary over time and across different sectors. Certainly, in other research such as the GAP Studies, CCOs self report that their influence is growing. But, only through more extensive longitudinal studies will it be possible to answer more definitively some of the issues raised about direct reporting and structure. In this research study, it did not appear that a CCOs direct reporting to a CEO was significant in the choice of communication department structure. In summary then, our research did reproduce the significance of key decisionmakers views on structure, but with some conditions. While the prevailing structural mindset and preferences of the organization’s senior decision-maker was noticeable, communication department structural choices also tended to reflect the role of the CCO as well as individual organizational circumstances.
214
Chapter 7 Conclusions In this chapter, we will attempt to draw a series of overall conclusions, if and where possible, from our findings in Chapter 4 and from our discussions in Chapters 5 and 6. Our conclusions will relate to each of the eight themes we identified in our extensive literature review and to each of the seven RQs that we developed to frame our research and from these we will present a series of overall conclusions relating to our three objectives for this study. The IABC Research Foundation’s goal for this project (as stated in the RFP) was: “This three-part international study calls for progressively deep investigations of top performing communication functions within organizations, with the goal of identifying the factors that influence communication department structure and effectiveness.” Building on that main goal, our team established three objectives for this study that were approved by the IABC Research Foundation: (1) The identification of communication department structures; (2) The identification of factors that influenced communication department structure; and (3) The identification of which of these factors that are the most important in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department. Before discussing our overall conclusions for each of these objectives, here are our conclusions for each of the themes we identified in the literature and for each of the RQs we researched. Themes of the Literature Review Structural Change Over Time We conclude that the concept of ‘structural change over time’ as identified in our literature review, while not in itself a direct factor in influencing a current communication
215 department structural choice, should have the on-going attention of CCOs - since our findings suggest that any communication department structure is non-permanent even in the shorter term and that successful CCOs review and adapt structure on a regular basis. The quest to identify a single universal communication function structure ignores the essential dynamic of organizational life that dictates the need for constant renewal and change, albeit that in the short-term, a year or two perhaps, structure per se may remain relatively constant. From the Traditional Approach, the Key Concepts of Complexity, Specialization, Centralization and Configuration We conclude that the concepts of complexity, specialization, centralization and configuration as identified in our literature review are important factors that do indeed influence communication department structure. Further, we conclude that complexity (the extent of differentiation, the number of different component parts and the degree to which work is divided up into sets of operational activities / skills) is inherent in the structure of any communication department (a department maintaining a range of disciplines and horizontal organizational options such as by activity / service, by internal client and by stakeholder) and, as such, is one of the most important factors in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department. We conclude that specialization (the degree to which work is undertaken by specialist roles) is linked to complexity and, therefore, is one of the most important factors in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department. We conclude that centralization (the degree to which power and control over decisions is held within the top management hierarchy) while important for a number of reasons (role of CEO in reviewing communication department structure; CCO reporting relationship with the CCO; CCO as a member of the executive committee; CCO input being valued) is one of the most important factors in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department with regard to the integration of the function as a single communication department. We conclude that configuration (the ‘shape’ of the organization’s hierarchical structure, including chain of command and span of control) is one of the most important factors in designing an effective organizational structure for
216 the communication department particularly when the department moves across a size threshold and requires an additional level of stratification. From the Configuration Approach, the Importance of the Key Five Structural Models: (Simple Form; U Form; M Form; Matrix Form; and Virtual Form) We conclude that the choice of configurational approach (simple form; U form; M form; matrix form; or virtual form) for the organization as a whole is a factor that influences communication department structure - particularly the need to be ‘close to’ internal clients (typically through account executive positions) - but that this choice of an organizational model, perhaps other than the choice of a matrix form structure, is not a major factor in the determination of communication department structure. The Significance of Organizational and Communication Department Size We conclude that size of the organization (since size here correlates with organizational complexity and configuration from the Traditional Approach as well as geographical reach) is a factor that influences communication department structure. The size of the communication department (where size correlates with increased vertical hierarchy and thus increased complexity and configuration), though, is an important factor in the design of an effective organizational structure for the communication department, and thus more important than organizational size. The Need to Recognize that Structure and Structural Choice Decisions Are Contingent on a Range of Factors (Rather Than Simple Cause-and-Effect Relationships) We conclude that the idea that a ‘range of factors’ are involved, while not an idea that in itself it is a direct factor in influencing a current communication department structural choice, should be top-of-mind with CCOs when reorganization is being discussed - since our findings demonstrate that not one specific factor is a structural ‘magic bullet’ and that all factors must be considered against each other and against the whole. The Significance of the International / Global Scope of an Organization’s Operations on Structural Choice Decisions and Functional Structures We conclude that an international / global scope for the organization (where geographical spread correlates with a continental or global scope of operations for the
217 CCO and the possibility of regionally based communication units) is a factor, not necessarily an important factor though, that influences communication department structure - particularly the need to be ‘close to’ regionally based internal clients regardless of the decentralized nature of the organizational structure. The Significance of Organizational and Societal Culture We conclude that neither organizational nor societal culture, as identified in our literature review, are direct factors in influencing a current communication department structural choice, though we acknowledge that organizational culture may have an indirect part to play. There was no indication of any significance for societal culture in determining communication department structure. The Significance of Individual Perceptions Amongst Key Decision-Makers (as Opposed to, and in Relation to, Wider Human Agents in the Organization) Responsible for Determining Structural Options We conclude that the views of key decision-makers on structure are factors in influencing a current communication department structural choice. But, while factors, they are not necessarily important factors, since CCOs had considerable latitude themselves to organize as they saw fit within their department. Research Questions RQ 1: Are there specific structures / models for communication departments? We conclude that there is no one universal structural model that can be applied to all communication departments, nor is there a dominant set of say three, four or five models that can be applied individually depending on certain conditions to a portion of all communication departments. Each communication department structure is unique, a hybrid structure - particularly its horizontal structure - customized to each department’s situation. Communication departments require specific structural adaptation, based on an original weighing of various factors. RQ 2: Is there a relationship between communication department structure and organizational structure? We conclude that there is not a strong relationship between the overall
218 organizational structure (be it simple, U-, M-, matrix or virtual form) and the communication department structure. That said, a secondary relationship exists with a for-profit organization operating internationally, regardless of its overall organizational form, between its horizontal structure and the communication function’s attempt to mirror the international scope. RQ 3: What are the most critical factors determining communication department structure? We conclude that the most critical factors are: human choice, especially by the CCO but also including to a lesser degree the CEO and the communication department’s management team; the concepts of Complexity and Specialization with regard to organizing the horizontal structure of the department; the concepts of Centralization and Configuration with regard to departmental integration (particularly when the organization and the communication department have international operations); and departmental size. RQ 4: Is there a link between the structure of the communication department and organizational efficacy? We conclude that there is not a link between a particular structural configuration for the communication department, or its position within the overall organization structure, and organizational efficacy. RQ 5: Does the structure of communication departments remain constant across different geographic regions? We conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that communication department structures remain constant for across multiple organizations operating internationally in the same region or across regions. On the other hand, there is limited evidence of the possibility of intra-firm communication department structural similarities across geographical regions, given the relationship between having regional communication units reporting directly or functionally to the CCO and the loci and the participants for the development of communication strategies that affect the whole organization.
219
RQ 6: If there are global differences in communication department structures, what are they? We conclude that while most of the CCOs with international responsibilities work in U-form or matrix structures, there is no one, dominant structural model for communication departments that operate globally and thus there are differences among all hybrid structures. A key differences would be in reporting structure for regional units, whether direct, functional or not at all to the CCO, although communication departments in matrix form organizations that operate internationally are more likely to integrate regional and HQs communication departments through direct or functional reporting and joint or separate communication strategizing. RQ 7: Is it possible for there to be a universally effective communication department structure? We conclude that there is no universally effective communication function structure. Neither the country where the HQs was located, nor the structure of the organization, nor the size of the organization, nor the geographical reach of the organization, nor the business / industry sector in which the organization operated had any affect on communication department structure. It is not possible to have a universally effective communication department structure because there isn’t a universal communication department structure. Communication department structures are hybrids, paralleling the individuality of the host organization, and under regular review, adapting regularly to be as effective as possible under new circumstances. Overall Conclusions C1 There appears to be considerable instability or uncertainty about organizational / communication department structures - with, in most cases, a sense of on-going transition and regular change in structure both at the organizational and communication department levels. This apparent instability and uncertainty about communication department structure is important to note because it may underpin the prevailing mind-sets that are in operation when considering the questions of structures and the role of communication
220 departments within them. This is not to suggest that organizational settings and communication department lived experiences are chaotic and disorganized, however it does underscore a continuing need by the CCO for agility, adaptability and flexibility in relation to evolving markets, environments and organizational direction and prioritization as well as in relation to the churn that may accompany the arrival of a new CEO. Moreover, it may well be that even where CCOs have experienced radical and transformative change in their organizational structures to which they are forced to react, for the most part, these actually seem to occur through the iterative and gradual processes of sharing sense making and building up ‘shared pictures’ of what seems relevant and appropriate. That is, CCOs are unlikely to be left to their own devises to force a radical reorganization; rather they are more often than not going to be part of a management team process, in which they participate and thus may input to and respond to collective decisions as well as to organizational directions taken by others. In essence, this infers that it is important not to think of contemporary organizational settings as disorganized, chaotic and difficult to control. There will always be substantial energy required in order to constantly assess and adapt to such environments, but the experience of this is likely to appear as a range of ongoing interactions and discussions and meeting of minds between individuals and groups. C2 Whatever the merits of differing horizontal structural configurations in the communication department, as far as the overall department structure is concerned, departmental size appears to outweigh all other considerations when it comes to the number and complexity of options available to choose from for departmental structure. As was revealed in the Chapter 4, over half the respondent organizations were found to employ less than 5000 people, and more pertinently, around three quarters of respondents indicated that less than 25 people were employed in the communication function. The relatively small-sized communication departments were not only found in smaller organizations or not-for profits organizations, but rather were found to typify communication departments across organizations of all sizes. It was only in the case of the very largest, often internationally based, organizations that the communication departments reached a size where the issues of vertical structure merited more careful
221 consideration. Increased size means additional options to deal with factors such as complexity, specialization and configuration. It may well be that it is more difficult to find a workable, if not the right, structural option for a smaller sized communication department than it would be for one much larger.
C3 It is the CCO’s effective use of the human capital value that she/he has that makes the chosen hybrid communication department structure work. The focus of this study has been on the search for the most effective form of structure for communication departments, one that might best contribute to organizational performance and success. As the evidence presented seems to suggest, this quest for the definitive structure seems destined to be unsuccessful in that no one structure can be expected to suit all organizations or all scenarios. Equally, as the evidence of this study repeatedly highlights, given the relatively small size of the communication departments found in the majority of organizations, structure per se is unlikely to prove sole critical factor determining effective performance. Rather, what many respondents have pointed out is that the key to effective performance lies in recruiting and retaining the best people for the communication function - those who are able to influence and operate professionally and highly effectively - and putting them in the right positions in the structure (the right people in the right positions in the right structure). Again, this may be more important for CCOs who lead departments smaller in size, where recruiting ‘talent’ may be difficult but placing that ‘talent’ in the best possible position in relatively flat structure may be even more daunting. Here, it also was clear that CCOs emphasized strongly the importance of effective leadership and management expertise, to support these right people in the right positions. This is not to dismiss the potential importance of department structure, particularly in terms of how it facilitates or inhibits access to senior management, and how it may impact on the control and direction of what might be geographically dispersed communication offices across the organizational landscape. But, as one commentator explained: “structure alone is not the most important thing … it is about having the best people.” Thus, perhaps one key message emerging from this study is that the most
222 effective communication departments - those that are best able to contribute to organizational success - are likely to be those that recognize the need to balance the importance of having both the ‘right’ people and the ‘right’ functional structure for the current situation and moment in time. While this may seem obvious, the challenge is to identify what constitutes the ‘right’ structure and to secure the services of the right people. For most smaller organizations and smaller communication departments, the emphasis will clearly be on the people ‘side of the equation’, but as the scope and size of the organization and its communication activities and office grow, structure begins to figure ever more prominently in terms of ensuring the effective management and effective coordination of all communication efforts.
C4 Communication department structures like organizational structures, irrespective of industry sector, HQ location or geographical scope, appear to have been resistant to, or have seen little to be gained from, a move to adopt some of the more organic / critical forms of structure. Returning to the central focus for this study, namely the question of what role communication department structure may play in facilitating or constraining organizational effectiveness, the evidence gathered offers a somewhat inconclusive answer to this question. Clearly no ‘magic bullet’ solution has emerged in terms of one universally effective structural model that communication departments might rush to adopt or emulate. Perhaps it would be unrealistic to expect such an outcome given the diversity of the organizations examined in terms of industry sectors, geographic location, sizes, longevity, ownership patterns, etc. Rather, we found a variety of structures as being in play at the organizational level. Moreover, as we have already highlighted, there also seems to be potentially an unlimited repertoire of structures in play both at the communication department level, which appear to be aligned across the conventional / traditional style of structure. However, the evidence gathered points firmly to a strong preference for conventional / traditional structures across all industry sectors explored as well as at the organizational and functional levels. The virtual, hollow and networked organic / critical structural models, although we came across a few examples in our research, appear not as near as popular as the literature might suggest.
223 It is interesting to note that while the organizational literature has suggested a trend towards the adoption of more organic structures within contemporary organizations, little evidence was found within this study of any of the newer, more neural or organic forms of structure even amongst the larger organizations examined. This lack of any significant evidence of more neural or organic structures at the organizational level, let alone at the communication level, might be interpreted as demonstrating a conservative mindset and bias within the sample of organizations examined. Perhaps, this new thinking about structural forms has not penetrated amongst them, or at least not sufficiently enough to bring about change. On the other hand, it might well be that such claims for the growth of newer more organic and less conventional structures has been exaggerated, and hence the lack of evidence of their existence within the study is not particularly significant. Whatever the merits of such arguments and putative explanations for the relatively slow development of new communication department structural thinking, we believe that the views expressed across this study, which represent a reasonably wide-ranging and international cross section of organizations, suggest that the majority of communication departments are operating very much against a backdrop of what might be termed ‘conventional’ or ‘traditional’ organizational structures. That is not to say that reliance on largely conventional / traditional department structures has adversely impacted, in any obvious way, the effectiveness of the communication function and its ability to contribute to organizational success. It is more to suggest that if the characteristics of the matrix form model seem to be advantageous to the communication department, how more advantageous might the virtual, hollow and networked organic / critical structural models, with the possibility of more fluid boundaries, shifting patterns over time and greater flexibility, be to the department? C5 Over and above questions about structure, the study revealed a number of critical success factors for the CCO and her or his management of the department. Although not simply confined the structural variables, a number of critical success factors emerged from the study that CCOs saw as helping to shape or
224 constrain the performance of the communication function. These included the following key factors:
CCOs must hire people capable of being strategic thinkers and support their senior staff to operate at a strategic level;
CCOs must recognize the importance of offering strategic business advice and the role that communication plays in supporting business planning and strategizing;
CCOs must find the correct balance between the number of specialists and the number of generalists employed on staff;
CCOs must ensure that policies, guidelines, processes, strategies, plans and accountabilities are integrated with resources across the whole function and that there is clear accountability across units including clear KPIs for communication operations; and
CCOs must appreciate the importance of trying to maintain departmental structures that are flexible and fluid, to respond to ever changing environments as well as to maintain an appropriate work / life balance.
Finally, let’s conclude by addressing this study’s three objectives and it’s overarching goal. Objective #1: The identification of communication department structures Communication department structures are like snowflakes: no two are exactly alike. Each communication department structure is a hybrid, unique against all others, and customized to be as effective as possible in ever changing circumstances. Objective #2: The identification of factors that influenced communication department structure A range of factors were identified, including: the organization’s current structural model; the organization’s degree of international scope of operations; the perceptions of the CEO regarding CCO reporting and communication function integration; the perceptions of the CCO regarding choice of core disciplines and the expertise and talent of the employees the CCO has on staff; the degree of communication department complexity desired; the degree of communication department specialization desired; the degree of communication department centralization desired; and the degree of communication department configuration desired. Department size is an additional
225 factor, one that interacts with all the other factors and influences the degree to which the other factors may be constrained. Objective #3: The identification of which of these factors that are the most important in designing an effective organizational structure for the communication department. The most important factors were: the perspectives of the CCO; the concepts of Complexity and Specialization; the concepts of Centralization and Configuration; and departmental size. GOAL: “This three-part international study calls for progressively deep investigations of top performing communication functions within organizations, with the goal of identifying the factors that influence communication department structure and effectiveness.” As we reported in the literature review, few studies have attempted to examine structure exclusively at the functional or departmental level. None have taken a “progressively deep investigation.” This study is the first, in-depth attempt do so at the departmental level and the first to do so with the public relations / communication department.
226
Chapter 8 Future Research The focus of this research project was on for-profit and non-profit organizations and their communication departmentss. These organizations varied in size, in the businesses they were in, in the location of their headquarters, in the international scope of their operations and in the form of organizational structure in place. Their communication departments also varied in size, in the location of their headquarters, in the international scope of their operations, in the degree of functional integration, in the positioning of the communication department in the organization and the reporting arrangements for the CCO and in the form of hybrid communication department structure they employed. Looking to the future for this line of research, one obvious and useful further step would be to examine in far greater depth a number of important factors that we identified in this study. Here a some suggestions that would add to our findings: 1.
Conduct research solely on the structure of the small communication department, those with less than 10 employees. Size is an important factor in the determination of communication department structure, but with departments of less than 10 employees size does not have the impact on vertical structure as it does in larger communication departments. With two levels of stratification, the emphasis must focus on horizontal structure, in particular decisions regarding the design of cluster, variegated or hybrid structures. Here is would be interesting to explore the options a CCO has and the choices the CCO makes, and why.
2.
Conduct research solely on the structure of the large, internationally based communication department, those with 100 or more employees. Here vertical structure and international scope of operation become much more significant. It would be interesting to explore the options a CCO has and the choices the CCO makes.
3.
Conduct research with a focus on cross-cultural comparative research to examine large, internally based communication departments with HQs located on various continents and in various countries in more depth to understand if and how far organizational and societal culture may shape structural configurations and the associated operational practices;
227 4.
Conduct longitudinal research with the same communication departments to explore how structure may change over time, for example, in response changing technologies that reshape and redefine communication-working practice. Much of the research to date has offered largely only a snapshot view of communication department structure at one point in time, with any insights into the possible changing structural pattern of the department relying on the recollection of those interviewed.
5.
Conduct research on the nature and function of power and influence over the choices made in determining communication department structure. Here, while the CCO would be involved, so would the CEO and the executive team and well as the communication department management team. Perhaps, it would be useful to be able to triangulate the CCO perspective with data gathered from organizational executives and department managers to provide a more complete “three dimensional picture” of how effective are its horizontal and vertical structures. Here also the perceived competencies of the CCO and the CCO’s management team could add a new dimension to the nature of power and influence over choice in determining communication department structures.
6.
Conduct research using a larger sample size. While this sample size is relatively large in comparison to other samples of CCOs found in other studies (given the difficulty in identifying and reaching the global population of CCOs), is comprised of a broad cross section of for-profit and of non-profit organizations, is a representative spread of industrial and business sectors and finally is a broad geographical spread of respondent organizations, the overall sample is relatively small compared to the possible total global CCO population.
7.
Conduct research on the concept of communication function integration into a single department. Research could focus on how integration through direct reporting or integration through functional reporting influences the determination of communication department structure. This could have two aspects, integration of different and separate communication units at headquarters and integration of different and separate communication units in the regions with a HQs communication department or separate units. All of the above potential areas are indicative of an array of communication
structural domains ripe for future investigation. While our study was the first of its kind devoted exclusively to communication department structure and while it answers many questions, it does raise other important issues that more focused research could address.
228
Chapter 9 Conceptual Framework and Diagnostic Model Background In this final chapter of our report, we attempt to offer the implications of our findings and conclusions and present them in a way that is useful to Chief Communication Officers. The goal of this research project was to identify the factors that influence communication department structure. The project team was expected to “develop a sophisticated, fact-based diagnostic tool based on the findings of the project.” The RFP for the project described this “tool” as follows: “The diagnostic tool should provide a means for a communication professional to assess the effectiveness of communication structure and function within their organization. It should offer an organized and easily understood form of comparison to other similar organizations. This tool should not be a simple checklist. The tool should be linked to methodologically sound criteria established by the study. It should be relevant, practical, simple, clear and easy to use. It should offer a method for communications practitioners to apply and share the value from the use of their tool with their professional colleagues and organizational leaders.” As is evident throughout this report, the data we collected clearly indicate that the design of the structure of a communication department is neither as simple nor as straightforward as one might prefer. We found a significant number of factors that have a bearing on the structural design. The evidence also indicated that the overall importance of each of these factors appears to be different from department to department and organization to organization. Therefore, in addressing the above requirement of the RFP, we have sought to apply what the study identified as the most frequently cited factors that appear to be the common denominators in influencing structural choice. The research also suggested that these factors are those most likely to influence the choice of ‘organizational model’ for the communication department. However, no single factor emerged from the research as being the most important consideration, nor did any specific order of
229 importance or priority amongst the factors emerge from the study. Hence, the study suggests that a CCO should consider each factor in turn, to determine the weighting given to each when arriving at decisions about departmental structure. As suggested earlier in the report, all communication department structures ultimately are ‘hybrids’, in the sense that the horizontal organization (type and number of specialized units) of the communication department structure has to be adapted or customized to the unique circumstances of the department. On the other hand, the vertical structure of the department is generally dependent on the size of the department. That is, communication departments of a similar size tend to have a similar number of strata in their organizational structure. Departments of a similar size may have similar vertical structures but may differ widely in the number and specialization of the different units arranged horizontally within the vertical structure. This chapter sets out to examine the application of the ten factors that the study identified earlier as having the most practical implications for the CCO, based on our extensive research, which, in fact, went beyond what was called for by the RFP. The ten factors were deduced by triangulating three data points from this study: our extensive review of relevant literature; our findings from our qualitative interviews; and the results from the quantitative survey we conducted. We then unbundle each of those factors and provide a detailed explanation of how the CCO should view, and apply, each of them. After much reflection, we believe that it is more appropriate to call this a ‘conceptual framework and diagnostic model’ rather than a tool. This ‘framework and model’ approach can be viewed as a representative example of a standardized approach that can be followed or copied to provide greater intellectual rigor than perhaps a simple analytical tool might offer. In this sense, we present, ultimately, a practical diagnostic model for each CCO to consider, based on their department’s size, as they contemplate any new functional organizational structure or the evolution of their existing structure. As has been noted earlier in the findings chapter, more often than not, it is the CCO who is the main or chief architect of the communication department structure. Also, CCOs are increasingly required to review and systematically restructure and evolve the organization of their communication department. The research indicates
230 that the majority of CCOs re-organize their communication department at least once every three years. The conceptual framework outlined below in Figure 9.1 offers an initial generic framework for the CCO to consider when contemplating a structural change. This conceptual framework attempts to represent the relevant elements or dimensions of organizational or departmental structural design, but also the ‘macro’ environment and organizational factors that help shape both organizational and department structure. Here, the model suggests that structural design decisions will generally start and reflect external environmental conditions, which in turn, will influence structural design decisions at the organizational and then departmental levels. In constructing an appropriate structural design conceptual framework, we have borrowed and adapted the notion of the ‘value chain’ framework originally advanced by Michael Porter (1985) to provide an underlying template to capture the key dimensions of our suggested structural design models for communication and public relations departments. Porter’s original value chain framework was designed to help identify the primary and secondary elements of organizational activity that incur costs to the business, but also those activities that add value to the customer offering. In our adapted version of the value chain framework, we have attempted to use the basic framework to map the processes and key influences on structural design whether at the organization or departmental level. Here the starting point is consideration of the broader ‘macro-environmental’ influences that may shape to a lesser or greater degree structural decisions across industry members as a whole, as well as the core considerations for structural choices at the organizational level, as well as at the departmental level. The elements of the conceptual framework and the steps in utilizing the diagnostic model for analysis purposes are explored in a little more detail below.
Conceptual Framework and Diagnostic Model Figure 9.1 below presents the Communication Department Structural Design Conceptual Framework. The Conceptual Framework is based on our findings, which helped us to identify the key factors that appear to influence the design of communication department structure.
231 Figure 9.1 Conceptual Framework of the Key Dimensions of Communication Department Structure and the Key Factors Shaping Decisions About Department Structure
To utilize this conceptual framework, it is important to recognize that organizational and departmental structures are the product of decisions and choices made by those holding power within the organization - the dominant coalition. Inevitably, such decision makers are likely to be influenced heavily by the prevailing and anticipated economic, market and perhaps socio-political conditions and issues affecting their industry and markets (see step 1), opting for structures that best enable their organization / department to respond to such influences. Of course, the influences on structural choices and on the effectiveness of different structures are not only external. Structures may be shaped, and their effectiveness may be influenced, by a range of internal (meso-level) considerations. In Porter’s original value chain framework, these were termed secondary or support activities. These meso-level considerations shown at step 2 in the conceptual framework are factors that may help
232 facilitate the operation of functional structures (such as control systems, technology, etc.), as well as the mechanisms for ensuring the that functional structures have the right people and resources to help them operate effectively and achieve the goals set for the departments in question. Important as such external and internal considerations may be, our research has highlighted that it is organization and communication department size, most particularly the latter (see step 3), which generally serve as the key determinants of the viable options open to CCOs or other senior management decision-makers in making choices about structural design. (For the purposes of the diagnostic model building exercise that follows, we have identified five different size categories for communication departments from our research, which we have used as the basis for organizing and displaying the analysis of the structural variables and the factors affecting communication department structure shown in Figures 9.2 below. As noted previously in the report, the research showed that the vast majority of communication departments comprise less than 25 employees - with most of these having less than 10 employees. Based on the findings from the study, 58.0% of the CCO respondents had fewer than 10 employees in the communication department, 20% had between 11 and 25, 9% between 26 and 50, 7% between 51 and 100 and 6% more than 100. These five categories address the requirements of the RFP, which called for diversity in organizational size. However, one obvious caveat in interpreting our findings, or indeed in the vast majority of research into communication departments, is the over-representation of larger organizations [1000+ employees] within the sample. Although not a deliberate ploy, this sample bias was the almost inevitable consequence of our need to identify organizations where a formal communication department existed, which skewed the sample towards the larger end of the organizational size spectrum. Of course, we recognized that in most countries, over 90% of private and non-profit sector organizations employ fewer than 250 employees and are considered SMEs [Small and Medium Size Enterprises], but equally in the vast majority of such SMEs, and particularly at the lower end of this size spectrum, it is generally unusual to expect to
233 find that a separate communication function exists. Thus, a completely representative sample of profit and not-for-profit organizations would have been likely to result in considerable redundancy in the sample, potentially limiting the insights that might be gained from the data in terms of observing different structural design solutions for the communications department.) The final two steps in this conceptual framework (Figure 9.1) focus on the micro level, which explore the influence of organizational and departmental level factors (see steps 4 & 5) on structural design decisions. Organizational factors (step 4) essentially relate to those organization-wide dimensions or characteristics that generally serve to shape or constrain structural decisions across all organizational departments. The overall scope and established structure of the organization as a whole will generally tend to determine the options in configuring the structure of communication departments, as will the geographical scope the organization’s operations. Moreover, considerations surrounding how different functions are required to integrate across an organization, and report into senior management will again constrain and shape structural decisions. The final step (step 5) in this conceptual framework focuses on communication departmental structure, and specifically on factors at the heart of decisions determining departmental structure. Attention turns to choices around the vertical and horizontal structural variables that essentially dictate the structural configuration of the department. (Again, department ‘size’ emerges as a key factor. In general, decisions regarding a communication department’s horizontal structure are likely to be an important consideration almost regardless of the size of the department. On the other hand, the department’s vertical structure becomes increasingly important only as the size of the communication department increases. This research suggests that vertical structure emerges as a major, defining factor when the department moves beyond three, four or more strata. Thus, one can conclude that structural design decisions, which are concerned with the choice of an appropriate combination of horizontal and vertical elements, invariably become more intricate and complex the larger the organization and communication department become, since the number of possibilities increases.)
234 Drawing on the ideas embodied in the conceptual framework, we have set out in Figure 9.2 below what can be seen as the ‘generic’ systematic steps and elements of analysis that the CCO will need to undertake in completing this diagnostic analysis of the structural dimensions of communication department functions. This ‘generic’ diagnostic model is then expanded in Figures 9.3 to 9.7 to provide a set of five individual models - with each representing a different size of communication department. Here, in the generic diagnostic model (9.2), we have included reference to the initial step of external environmental analysis and scanning along with meso-level analysis of the infrastructural considerations that may influence or shape structural choice decisions to a lesser or greater extent. We have not replicated these steps explicitly for each of the size-related models (Figures 9.3 - 9.7) simply to improve the clarity of the presentation of these diagnostic models, yet we recognize that almost irrespective of department size, any structural decision-making process must take into account relevant external environmental forces / trends as well as internal meso-level infrastructural considerations. In summary, the key steps in applying the diagnostic models to decisions about the structural configuration of any particular communication department are outlined below, and are then expanded in the Figures 9.2 - 9.7: 1.
Consider the overall context and key external and internal considerations that may shape decisions about communication department structure, familiarizing yourself with the key questions / issues outlined in the generic diagnostic model (Figure 9.2) that might need to be addressed in determining the most appropriate communications department structure;
2.
Select the model (Figures 9.3 - 9.7) that matches the size or potential size of your department and work systematically through the questions that relate to the set of factors identified in the genetic diagnostic model;
3.
Cycle back through all of the questions / considerations to ensure their overall consistency and coherence of the answers / choices reached:
4.
Finalize the choices, prioritizing each of the factors and balancing the influence of one against the influence of the others in drafting an organizational chart; and
5.
Complete the analysis by reviewing the draft departmental structure, identify possible weaknesses, and rebalance as necessary before finalizing the chosen structural configuration.
235 Figure 9.2: Communication Department Structural Design: Generic Diagnostic Model COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN: GENERIC DIAGNOSTIC MODEL IMPORTANT FACTORS Each of the factors that follow directly below should be considered. Consider each in order, working systematically through the key choice decisions relating to structural dimensions of the department.
DEPARTMENTAL SIZE CATEGORIES UP TO 10 EMPLOYEES
UP TO 25 EMPLOYEES
UP TO 50 EMPLOYEES
UP TO 100 EMPLOYEES
MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES
MACRO / MESO ENVIRONMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The starting point for any structural design considerations must be how any structure will fit with and relate to the environmental forces impacting on the industry and the individual organization. Economic conditions, socio-cultural changes and regulatory controls are just some of the external environmental considerations facing decision-makers.
INTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Departmental structural decisions must also take account of internal infrastructural considerations such as the prevailing command and control systems, the type of technology information systems available or required, the type of HRM policies and staff recruitment capabilities and the training available and required and what services maybe outsourced and how any such outsourcing relationships will be managed.
ORGANIZATIONAL Structural Form Geographical Scope
The Structural Form of the organization refers to the different organizational forms: simple form; Uform; M-form; matrix form; and virtual form. Structures became increasingly decentralized moving from the more centralized simple form and U-form to the more decentralized M-form, matrix form and virtual form. In the research, the majority of communication departments were found in either Uform or matrix form organizational structures. The Geographical Scope of the organization refers to the reach or breadth of the organization and the number of locations outside of its headquarters where employees are situated, be the locations situated region-wide, country wide, continent-wide and/or globally. In the research, the majority of CCOs with international responsibilities worked in matrix form organizations. Here the CCO should identify and consider the type of structural form or forms in place at headquarters and in geographical regions and then consider the geographical spread of the organization. The ability to be ‘close to’ internal clients should be considered, since proximity improves the ability of the communication department to support other departments, business lines or regions in the organization as separate managed accounts.
CEO CHOICE Communication Integration CCO Reporting
Integration refers to the degree to which the organization’s full communication department is centralized or decentralized and the degree to which it works collectively. Full integration may be achieved with a single communication department that spans the organization, both at headquarters and in the organization’s regions. For the organization with a number of independent communication departments, at headquarters and/or in the organization’s regions, partial integration may be achieved if there is a recognized primary communication department and CCO, with the
236 other departments reporting functionally to that CCO so as to have a high degree of formalization and standardization of communication policies, procedures, processes and plans across the organization. Non-integration refers to an organization’s communication function that comprises two or more independent communication departments, with each separate department reporting differently within the organization’s structure. In the research, integration as a single department occurred in approximately 60% of the cases, with functional integration in approximately half of the remaining cases. CCO Reporting refers to the executive to whom the CCO reports, upwards. In the research, just over half of all CCOs reported to the CEO/Chair, regardless of whether the CCO led a communication department of fewer than 10 employees or one of more than 100. A similar percentage sat on the highest-level executive committee in the organization. Over 40% reported to other functions (though none of these were dominant, with only a small number of CCOs reporting to a head of marketing, investor relations or government relations). Here the CCO should identify and consider the CEO’s (and/or Board of Directors’ and/or executive team’s) preference for a single communication department or for a number of separate communication departments within an overall communication function. If the preference is for more than one department, then the CCO should consider the preference for the role of the CCO in integrating the communication function through functional reporting or other means. Whether one department, a function with separate and independent departments or a function with separate and independent departments integrated through the CCO, the CCO should consider to whom the CCO reports as well as to whom, if there are other departments, to whom those heads report. The CCO should consider ‘unfettered access’ to the CEO and all executives, regardless of to whom the CCO reports, including through membership on the highest-level executive committees. The ability to achieve the best ‘positioning’ of the organization’s communication function should be considered, but since the research showed that there was no correlation between reporting to the CEO and communication department structure, then ‘unfettered access’ across the organization and being ‘close to’ their most important internal clients should be taken into consideration. CCO CHOICE Core Disciplines Employee ‘Talent’,
The Core Disciplines refer to the primary sub-functions (such as: external communication; internal communication; media relations; issues management; web communication; social media communication; marketing communication; membership communication; government relations; etc.; etc.) that the communication department will provide. If there is more than one department, it refers to the disciplines the department will specialize in, leaving other disciplines to other departments. In the research, the vast majority of CCOs led a ‘full-service’ department, having responsibility for at least these core disciplines: external communication/corporate communication/public relations/reputation management, internal/employee communication, media relations, issues management and web/digital communication - regardless of the size of the department or whether department was integrated or not. Less than half had additional responsibilities, such as for marketing communication, government relations, public affairs or corporate social responsibility. Employee ‘Talent’ refers to the individual and collective capabilities and competencies of department employees. It also refers to the leadership and management expertise of supervisors and/or managers as well as technical, advisory and strategic skill sets. It also refers to intangibles such as: internal client compatibility; succession planning; and experience levels. In the research, respondents described the competencies of supervisors, managers and directors (their strategic communication knowledge levels, their management skills and their leadership skills) as important factors in determining an organizational structure. Here the CCO should consider the prioritization of these core disciplines weighed against how they will be delivered (see complexity and specialization in the following section) first before considering existing employee capabilities and who will deliver these disciplines. Then the CCO should consider the need for additional competencies and whether new ‘talent’ should be brought in through employment, outsourcing and/or contracting-out.
237
HORIZONTAL STRUCTURE Complexity Specialization
Complexity refers to the number and type of component parts – or separate units – organized horizontally within the communication department and on what basis these units were created. In the research, department component parts or units were built around communication activities and services (specialized technical practice areas or skill sets such as: writing/editing; planning; research / evaluation; web site governance, posting and maintenance; media relations; events / exhibits; graphic design and production; social media channels; audio / visual production; advertising; translation / revision; speech writing; etc.), stakeholder groups (such as local community; environmental; investor; customer; supplier; donor; member; employee, government; business partner; etc.), internal clients (such as operational business line / unit; geographic / regional office; staff functions like HR; Marketing; Finance; Legal; Sales; Fundraising; CEO’s office; etc.), broad general functions (such as relationship management; corporate social responsibility; etc.) or geography. In the research, CCOs of small and mid sized communication departments organized their employees into units based first on specific units for activities and services, then on specific units for a stakeholder group or groups, and finally on specific units for an internal client or groups. On the other hand, CCOs of large communication departments organized their employees into units first on specific units for internal clients, second on specific units for activities and services and finally on specific units for stakeholder groups. Should there be specialized units for each discipline (external communication/corporate communication/public relations/reputation management, internal/employee communication, media relations, issues management and web/digital communication). Should there be specialized units mainly based on specific communication activities, services and practice areas? Should there be units based on the organization’s stakeholders? Should there be units based on each internal client? Should there be units for communication department processes such as program or product tasking and approvals, communication policies and procedures or budgeting / contracting? Should there be units for recruitment / retention and learning / training? Complexity refers to all of these questions. Specialization refers to the assignment of communication roles and responsibilities, both to units and to employee positions. A specialist unit or position would have a single role and responsibility, while a unit or position with a number of roles and responsibilities is a generalist. In the research, the combination of the complexity and specialization factors to department positions and units produced a unique and customized structure – a hybrid – for each department. A hybrid structure raises questions of how specialist and/or generalist employees should be combined into a unit or how units should be combined into a division. Here the CCO, understanding the resources allocated and thus the potential size of the department (number of employees) should consider what degree of complexity and specialization is required in the department’s horizontal structure, so as to: provide the chosen core disciplines; maximize employee capabilities; be close to internal clients; and match the organization’s geographical reach. Complexity refers to the number of units (boxes on an organizational chart), with each ‘unit’ consisting of one or more than one employee. Each unit is differentiated by whether it is organized by activity/service, by stakeholder, by internal client, by function, by region, etc. Specialization refers to whether each unit and/or each employee has single responsibility (specialist) or multiple responsibilities (generalist). The ability to ‘balance’ competing factors in a ‘best possible’ hybrid structure should be considered.
VERTICAL STRUCTURE Centralization Configuration
Centralization refers to the degree to which power and control over decisions is held within the top management hierarchy. A total centralization of power would have all employees report to the CCO, with the department having two levels of strata. Stratification refers to the number of reporting levels – the hierarchy – in the communication department and thus is a representation of the degree of centralization. It also refers to the hierarchy of employee position classifications, such as officer, supervisor, manager, director and Chief Communication Officer. The greater number of strata, the greater degree of decentralization of power and control. In the research, 84% of CCOs managed a communication department with 2 or 3 levels of hierarchy, while 13% managed one with 4 levels and 3% managed a department with 5 or more levels.
238
Configuration refers to the scope of management responsibilities, including the chain of command and the span of control of each supervisor or manager. It also refers to the capacity of the management team, including the leadership and management competencies of individual managers. What this suggests is that the number of officers in units under a supervisor may not be equal from supervisor to supervisor, with different spans of control. The same is true across the number of managers who manage supervisors or directors who direct managers. In the research, some supervisors, managers and/or directors had more direct reports than their peers did. Or, looking at the situation differently, a manager or director with distinct responsibilities (such as acting as corporate spokesperson or account manager for the department’s most important internal client) had a smaller number of direct reports. The number of component parts or units may differ from supervisor-to-supervisor, manager-to-manager and director-to-director dependent on the individual competencies and how the CCO decides to deploy those competencies. Here the CCO, again understanding the resources available, should consider the numbers of levels of stratification based on potential supervisor, manager and/or director chain of command and their span of control and thus the degree of decentralization required in the department.
239 Figure 9.3: Diagnostic Model for Up to 10 Employees COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN: DIAGNOSTIC MODEL CHARACTERISTICS OF A DEPARTMENT OF UP TO 10 EMPLOYEES This category could include CCOs who are one-person departments as well as CCOs having between 2 and 9 staff members reporting to them. When there are direct reports, typically there are only two levels of hierarchy. Given the small size of the department, the CCO typically enacts both technician and manager roles. As well as managing the department, the CCO may well be the chief speechwriter, the chief issues manager, the chief media relations’ contact, the chief communication planner and strategist and the chief advisor. With departments of this size, the CCO organizes employees into units primarily by deploying them to a specific activity/service ensuring that the communication channels or media and the communication products (newsletters; web postings; media releases; etc.) are in place to support the core disciplines. With departments of 8, 9, or 10 employees, the CCO may deploy a number of employees as account executives to specific stakeholders or internal clients. Typically, employees in departments of up to 10 employees are generalists, in that they may have multiple responsibilities such as for a channel (print publications), content for the newsletter (employee newsletter) and for the communication needs of an internal client (HR). Balancing responsibilities and thus workload across the department would be a constant organizational challenge for the CCO. IMPORTANT FACTORS
Here are the questions a CCO of a department of up to 10 employees should ask when designing the department’s structure:
ORGANIZATIONAL Structural Form Geographical Scope
What structural form does the organization as a whole employ? Is this form consistent across all business lines? Does the organization have regional operations? Are these regional, country wide, continentalwide and/or global? Is organizational and/or business line decision-making centralized or decentralized? Does it mirror organizational form? What advantages/disadvantages are there for the communication department to attempt to mirror the organization’s structure form and its geographical scope? Given the organization’s structural form and geographical scope, how does the communication department need to be structured to ensure it is ‘close to’ its internal clients?
CEO CHOICE Communication Integration CCO Reporting
Are other ‘staff functions’ (such as Human Resources; Finance; Planning; Purchasing; Information Management; etc.) integrated (centralized) into a single department or are they subsumed (decentralized) under each business line or line function? Are regional operations of staff functions integrated with the central staff function? Does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour a single, integrated communication department? If not, what communication disciplines does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour as separate, stand-alone departments (such as Marketing Communication; Investor Relations; Government Relations; etc.)? If not, what regional communication operations does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour as separate, stand-alone departments? If not, does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour functional reporting of all ‘communication units’ to the CCO? Does the CEO have a stated view on the number of direct reports and which staff/line functions report to the CEO now? Does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour direct CCO reporting to the CEO? If there are other, stand-alone communication departments to whom do they report? If not, does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour ‘unfettered access’ to them by the CCO?
CCO CHOICE
What core disciplines does the communication department need to provide?
240 Core Disciplines Employee ‘Talent’
If there are other, stand-alone communication departments, what disciplines do they provide? Is there overlap? What level of importance and priority should be given to each discipline (and thus ultimately the resources, ‘talent’ and positioning within the structure employed)? Are there disciplines that could be fully outsourced and delivered by consultants? Are there disciplines that need to be delivered by employee specialists, or will generalists do? What are those disciplines and thus what is the ratio of specialists to generalists required? Within the employee talent pool, are their employees with up to date specialized skill sets that could act in specialist technical positions delivering activities/services? Within the employee talent pool, are their employees with strategic communication skills, advisory skills, management skills and/or leadership skills that could be employed in account executive or management positions? Are certain capabilities and competencies missing in the department? To acquire these, is training possible, is hiring needed and/or is contracting-out required?
HORIZONTAL STRUCTURE Complexity Specialization
What units (a unit consists of one or more employees) do we need to effectively deliver the core disciplines? Which of the three main approaches (by activities/services; by stakeholders; by internal client) should be used to as the primary means to organize employees into units to deliver each core discipline? Secondary approach? Tertiary approach? For example, with the discipline of internal communication, employees could be organized by technical communication activity/service (channel maintenance and content production) only, or they could be organized by internal client (HR) (channel maintenance, content production and advice for HR) only, or they could be organized by stakeholder group (employees) (channel maintenance, content production and advice for the CEO, managers, HR, etc.) only – or there could be a mix of units. What is the best way to organize by technical communication activities/services (such as: writing/editing; events/exhibits; graphic design and production; social media channels; audio/visual production; etc.)? Should this be one unit or a number of units? Should specialists staff each unit? Or, can generalists provide a range of activities/services? What is the best way to organize by stakeholder groups (such as local community; environmental; investor; customer; supplier; donor; member; employee, government; business partner; etc.)? How many stakeholders require a dedicated, specialist account executive? Can one generalist account executive support two or more stakeholders? Does the account executive provide technical communication activities/services or does a separate unit provide these services separately or through the account executive? What is the best way to organize by internal clients (such as operational business line; geographic office; staff functions like HR; Marketing; Finance; Legal; Sales; Fundraising; CEO’s office; etc.)? How many internal clients require a dedicated specialist account executive? Can one generalist account executive support two or more internal clients? Does the account executive provide technical communication activities/services or does a separate unit provide these services separately or through the account executive? After organizing units first by activities/services, are there remaining employees that could be organized by internal clients? After organizing units first by activities/services, then by internal clients, are there remaining employees that could be organized by stakeholder group? Have we chosen the best way to organize x employees into x number of horizontal units to ensure the best deployment of employee talents, to ensure the best balance of technical, strategic and advisory support capabilities for the delivery of each discipline and to ensure a good degree of flexibility between and among specialist and generalist roles.
VERTICAL STRUCTURE Centralization Configuration
Is it possible for the CCO to designate a second-in-command (2IC) position and assign some management duties as part of the scope of responsibilities of one employee, ensuring a degree of back-up, capacity-building, career development and freeing up time in the CCO’s workload for more strategic and advisory work.
241 Figure 9.4: Diagnostic Model for Up to 25 Employees COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN: DIAGNOSTIC MODEL CHARACTERISTICS OF A DEPARTMENT OF UP TO 25 EMPLOYEES In departments of up to 25 employees, the organizational structure typically moves from two levels of hierarchy to three. The CCO can employ one or more supervisors and thus increase the size of the organizational units, allowing for a greater degree of specialization for each unit as well as for positions within each unit. For example, with closer to 25 employees, the CCO could employ one supervisor to oversee a unit dedicated to technical activities/services, a second supervisor to a unit dedicated to internal clients (HR; business lines; etc.), a third to a unit dedicated to stakeholders (community relations; customer relations; stakeholder relations; etc.) and a fourth dedicated to subfunctions (media relations; issues management; etc.). The role of the CCO changes as well, with less emphasis on a technician role, more emphasis on a manager role and more emphasis on a strategic role. IMPORTANT FACTORS
Here are the questions a CCO of a department of up to 25 employees should ask when designing the department’s structure:
ORGANIZATIONAL Structural Form Geographical Scope
What structural form does the organization as a whole employ? Is this form consistent across all business lines? Does the organization have regional operations? Are these regional, country wide, continentalwide and/or global? Is organizational and/or business line decision-making centralized or decentralized? Does it mirror organizational form? What advantages/disadvantages are there for the communication department to attempt to mirror the organization’s structure form and its geographical scope? Given the organization’s structural form and geographical scope, how does the communication department need to be structured to ensure it is ‘close to’ its internal clients?
CEO CHOICE Communication Integration CCO Reporting
Are other ‘staff functions’ (such as Human Resources; Finance; Planning; Purchasing; Information Management; etc.) integrated (centralized) into a single department or are they subsumed (decentralized) under each business line or line function? Are regional operations of staff functions integrated with the central staff function? Does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour a single, integrated communication department? If not, what communication disciplines does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour as separate, stand-alone departments (such as Marketing Communication; Investor Relations; Government Relations; etc.)? If not, what regional communication operations does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour as separate, stand-alone departments? If not, does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour functional reporting of all ‘communication units’ to the CCO? Does the CEO have a stated view on the number of direct reports and which staff/line functions report to the CEO now? Does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour direct CCO reporting to the CEO? If there are other, stand-alone communication departments to whom do they report? If not, does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour ‘unfettered access’ to them by the CCO?
CCO CHOICE Core Disciplines Employee ‘Talent’
What core disciplines does the communication department need to provide? If there are other, stand-alone communication departments, what disciplines do they provide? Is there overlap? What level of importance and priority should be given to each discipline (and thus ultimately the resources, ‘talent’ and positioning within the structure employed)? Are there disciplines that could be fully outsourced and delivered by consultants?
242 Are there disciplines that need to be delivered by employee specialists, or will generalists do? What are those disciplines and thus what is the ratio of specialists to generalists required? Within the employee talent pool, are their employees with up to date specialized skill sets that could act in specialist technical positions delivering activities/services? Within the employee talent pool, are their employees with strategic communication skills, advisory skills, management skills and/or leadership skills that could be employed in account executive or management positions? Are certain capabilities and competencies missing in the department? To acquire these, is training possible, is hiring needed and/or is contracting-out required? HORIZONTAL STRUCTURE Complexity Specialization
What units (a unit consists of one or more employees) do we need to effectively deliver the core disciplines? Which of the three main approaches (by activities/services; by stakeholders; by internal client) should be used to as the primary means to organize employees into units to deliver each core discipline? Secondary approach? Tertiary approach? For example, with the discipline of internal communication, employees could be organized by technical communication activity/service (channel maintenance and content production) only, or they could be organized by internal client (HR) (channel maintenance, content production and advice for HR) only, or they could be organized by stakeholder group (employees) (channel maintenance, content production and advice for the CEO, managers, HR, etc.) only – or there could be a mix of units. What is the best way to organize by technical communication activities/services (such as: writing/editing; events/exhibits; graphic design and production; social media channels; audio/visual production; etc.)? Should this be one unit or a number of units? Should specialists staff each unit? Or, can generalists provide a range of activities/services? What is the best way to organize by stakeholder groups (such as local community; environmental; investor; customer; supplier; donor; member; employee, government; business partner; etc.)? How many stakeholders require a dedicated, specialist account executive? Can one generalist account executive support two or more stakeholders? Does the account executive provide technical communication activities/services or does a separate unit provide these services separately or through the account executive? What is the best way to organize by internal clients (such as operational business line; geographic office; staff functions like HR; Marketing; Finance; Legal; Sales; Fundraising; CEO’s office; etc.)? How many internal clients require a dedicated specialist account executive? Can one generalist account executive support two or more internal clients? Does the account executive provide technical communication activities/services or does a separate unit provide these services separately or through the account executive? Have we chosen the best way to organize x employees into x number of horizontal units to ensure the best deployment of employee talents, to ensure the best balance of technical, strategic and advisory support capabilities for the delivery of each discipline and to ensure a good degree of flexibility between and among specialist and generalist roles.
VERTICAL STRUCTURE Centralization Configuration
How many levels of stratification are needed? With three levels, is it best to employ two, three or four supervisors and thus have a corresponding number of main units? How many employees should be in each unit? Should each supervisor manage the same number of employees? How would work flow between and among the units? Should a supervisor of a unit be as much a specialist in the subject matter as the specialist employees in the unit the supervisor manages or can the supervisor be more a generalist and manager? What degree of power and control over decisions does each supervisor hold? What are the management responsibilities of each supervisor in relation to the CCO and do the supervisors retain technical roles and responsibilities? Is it possible for the CCO to designate a second-in-command (2IC) position?
243 Figure 9.5: Diagnostic Model for Up to 50 Employees COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN: DIAGNOSTIC MODEL CHARACTERISTICS OF A DEPARTMENT OF UP TO 50 EMPLOYEES In departments of up to 50 employees, the organizational structure typically moves from three to four levels of hierarchy. With three levels, the number of supervisors increases as the department moves toward 50 employees. With four levels, the number of managers may range between two and four, with between two and three supervisors under each manager. Each unit increases its degree of specialization as the number of units grows. For example, with closer to 50 employees, the CCO could employ one manager to oversee a unit dedicated to technical activities/services, and within that unit could be two supervisors – one dedicated to managing four employees devoted to print production and another managing eight employees devoted to web/social media. As a department moves from 25 to 50 employees, additional specialists can be added for such functions as: research; planning; measurement; and training/professional development. The role of the CCO changes as well, with less emphasis on a manager role, more emphasis on a strategic role and more emphasis on a leadership role. IMPORTANT FACTORS
Here are the questions a CCO of a department of up to 50 employees should ask when designing the department’s structure:
ORGANIZATIONAL Structural Form Geographical Scope
What structural form does the organization as a whole employ? Is this form consistent across all business lines? Does the organization have regional operations? Are these regional, country wide, continentalwide and/or global? Is organizational and/or business line decision-making centralized or decentralized? Does it mirror organizational form? What advantages/disadvantages are there for the communication department to attempt to mirror the organization’s structure form and its geographical scope? Given the organization’s structural form and geographical scope, how does the communication department need to be structured to ensure it is ‘close to’ its internal clients?
CEO CHOICE Communication Integration CCO Reporting
Are other ‘staff functions’ (such as Human Resources; Finance; Planning; Purchasing; Information Management; etc.) integrated (centralized) into a single department or are they subsumed (decentralized) under each business line or line function? Are regional operations of staff functions integrated with the central staff function? Does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour a single, integrated communication department? If not, what communication disciplines does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour as separate, stand-alone departments (such as Marketing Communication; Investor Relations; Government Relations; etc.)? If not, what regional communication operations does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour as separate, stand-alone departments? If not, does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour functional reporting of all ‘communication units’ to the CCO? Does the CEO have a stated view on the number of direct reports and which staff/line functions report to the CEO now? Does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour direct CCO reporting to the CEO? If there are other, stand-alone communication departments to whom do they report? If not, does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour ‘unfettered access’ to them by the CCO?
CCO CHOICE Core Disciplines Employee ‘Talent’
What core disciplines does the communication department need to provide? If there are other, stand-alone communication departments, what disciplines do they provide? Is there overlap? What level of importance and priority should be given to each discipline (and thus ultimately the
244 resources, ‘talent’ and positioning within the structure employed)? Are there disciplines that could be fully outsourced and delivered by consultants? Are there disciplines that need to be delivered by employee specialists, or will generalists do? What are those disciplines and thus what is the ratio of specialists to generalists required? Within the employee talent pool, are their employees with up to date specialized skill sets that could act in specialist technical positions delivering activities/services? Within the employee talent pool, are their employees with strategic communication skills, advisory skills, management skills and/or leadership skills that could be employed in account executive or management positions? Are certain capabilities and competencies missing in the department? To acquire these, is training possible, is hiring needed and/or is contracting-out required?
HORIZONTAL STRUCTURE Complexity Specialization
What units (a unit consists of one or more employees) do we need to effectively deliver the core disciplines? Which of the three main approaches (by activities/services; by stakeholders; by internal client) should be used to as the primary means to organize employees into units to deliver each core discipline? Secondary approach? Tertiary approach? For example, with the discipline of internal communication, employees could be organized by technical communication activity/service (channel maintenance and content production) only, or they could be organized by internal client (HR) (channel maintenance, content production and advice for HR) only, or they could be organized by stakeholder group (employees) (channel maintenance, content production and advice for the CEO, managers, HR, etc.) only – or there could be a mix of units. What is the best way to organize by internal clients (such as operational business line; geographic office; staff functions like HR; Marketing; Finance; Legal; Sales; Fundraising; CEO’s office; etc.)? How many internal clients require a dedicated specialist account executive? Can one generalist account executive support two or more internal clients? Does the account executive provide technical communication activities/services or does a separate unit provide these services separately or through the account executive? What is the best way to organize by stakeholder groups (such as local community; environmental; investor; customer; supplier; donor; member; employee, government; business partner; etc.)? How many stakeholders require a dedicated, specialist account executive? Can one generalist account executive support two or more stakeholders? Does the account executive provide technical communication activities/services or does a separate unit provide these services separately or through the account executive? What is the best way to organize by technical communication activities/services (such as: writing/editing; events/exhibits; graphic design and production; social media channels; audio/visual production; etc.)? Should this be one unit or a number of units? Should specialists staff each unit? Or, can generalists provide a range of activities/services? After organizing units first by activities/services, are there remaining employees that could be organized by internal clients? After organizing units first by activities/services, then by internal clients, are there remaining employees that could be organized by stakeholder group? Have we chosen the best way to organize x employees into x number of horizontal units to ensure the best deployment of employee talents, to ensure the best balance of technical, strategic and advisory support capabilities for the delivery of each discipline and to ensure a good degree of flexibility between and among specialist and generalist roles.
VERTICAL STRUCTURE Centralization Configuration
How many levels of stratification are needed? With three levels, is it best to employ three, four, five, or six supervisors and thus have a corresponding number of main units? How many employees should be in each unit? Should each supervisor manage the same number of employees? With four levels, is it best to employ two, three, or four managers and thus have a corresponding number of main units? How many supervisors and sub-units should be in each unit? Should each supervisor manage the same number of supervisors? How would work flow between and among the units? Should a supervisor of a unit be as much a specialist in the subject matter as the specialist
245 employees in the unit the supervisor manages or can the supervisor be more a generalist and manager? What degree of power and control over decisions does each manager and each supervisor hold? What are the management responsibilities of each manager and each supervisor in relation to the CCO and do the managers retain technical roles and responsibilities? Is it possible for the CCO to designate a second-in-command (2IC) position?
246 Figure 9.6: Diagnostic Model for Up to 100 Employees COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN: DIAGNOSTIC MODEL CHARACTERISTICS OF A DEPARTMENT OF UP TO 100 EMPLOYEES In departments of up to 100 employees, the organizational structure typically has four levels of hierarchy and moves from four to five levels of hierarchy at the top end, introducing the level of director. A department of 100 is typically found in a very large organization, one that may be multidivisional and/or have a wide geographical scope. The added level of stratification is required to cope with the increasing breadth of the communication department. For example, with five levels, there could be two directors and under each director two or three managers and under each manager two or three supervisors. Under the supervisors then, there could be a dozen or more units of four to six to eight employees. These would be specialist units, with each unit increasing its degree of specialization as the number of units grows. As a department moves from 50 to 100 employees, typically the office of the CCO also increases adding administrative and logistical specialists to help in the internal coordination and integration of the department. The role of the CCO changes as well, with limited emphasis on a manager role, some emphasis on a strategic role but much more emphasis on a leadership role. IMPORTANT FACTORS
Here are the questions a CCO of a department of up to 100 employees should ask when designing the department’s structure:
ORGANIZATIONAL Structural Form Geographical Scope
What structural form does the organization as a whole employ? Is this form consistent across all business lines? Does the organization have regional operations? Are these regional, country wide, continentalwide and/or global? Is organizational and/or business line decision-making centralized or decentralized? Does it mirror organizational form? What advantages/disadvantages are there for the communication department to attempt to mirror the organization’s structure form and its geographical scope? Given the organization’s structural form and geographical scope, how does the communication department need to be structured to ensure it is ‘close to’ its internal clients?
CEO CHOICE Communication Integration CCO Reporting
Are other ‘staff functions’ (such as Human Resources; Finance; Planning; Purchasing; Information Management; etc.) integrated (centralized) into a single department or are they subsumed (decentralized) under each business line or line function? Are regional operations of staff functions integrated with the central staff function? Does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour a single, integrated communication department? If not, what communication disciplines does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour as separate, stand-alone departments (such as Marketing Communication; Investor Relations; Government Relations; etc.)? If not, what regional communication operations does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour as separate, stand-alone departments? If not, does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour functional reporting of all ‘communication units’ to the CCO? Does the CEO have a stated view on the number of direct reports and which staff/line functions report to the CEO now? Does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour direct CCO reporting to the CEO? If there are other, stand-alone communication departments to whom do they report? If not, does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour ‘unfettered access’ to them by the CCO?
CCO CHOICE Core Disciplines Employee ‘Talent’
What core disciplines does the communication department need to provide? If there are other, stand-alone communication departments, what disciplines do they provide? Is there overlap?
247 What level of importance and priority should be given to each discipline (and thus ultimately the resources, ‘talent’ and positioning within the structure employed)? Are there disciplines that could be fully outsourced and delivered by consultants? Are there disciplines that need to be delivered by employee specialists, or will generalists do? What are those disciplines and thus what is the ratio of specialists to generalists required? Within the employee talent pool, are their employees with up to date specialized skill sets that could act in specialist technical positions delivering activities/services? Within the employee talent pool, are their employees with strategic communication skills, advisory skills, management skills and/or leadership skills that could be employed in account executive or management positions? Are certain capabilities and competencies missing in the department? To acquire these, is training possible, is hiring needed and/or is contracting-out required? HORIZONTAL STRUCTURE Complexity Specialization
What units (a unit consists of one or more employees) do we need to effectively deliver the core disciplines? Which of the three main approaches (by activities/services; by stakeholders; by internal client) should be used to as the primary means to organize employees into units to deliver each core discipline? Secondary approach? Tertiary approach? For example, with the discipline of internal communication, employees could be organized by technical communication activity/service (channel maintenance and content production) only, or they could be organized by internal client (HR) (channel maintenance, content production and advice for HR) only, or they could be organized by stakeholder group (employees) (channel maintenance, content production and advice for the CEO, managers, HR, etc.) only – or there could be a mix of units. What is the best way to organize by technical communication activities/services (such as: writing/editing; events/exhibits; graphic design and production; social media channels; audio/visual production; etc.)? Should this be one unit or a number of units? Should specialists staff each unit? Or, can generalists provide a range of activities/services? What is the best way to organize by stakeholder groups (such as local community; environmental; investor; customer; supplier; donor; member; employee, government; business partner; etc.)? How many stakeholders require a dedicated, specialist account executive? Can one generalist account executive support two or more stakeholders? Does the account executive provide technical communication activities/services or does a separate unit provide these services separately or through the account executive? What is the best way to organize by internal clients (such as operational business line; geographic office; staff functions like HR; Marketing; Finance; Legal; Sales; Fundraising; CEO’s office; etc.)? How many internal clients require a dedicated specialist account executive? Can one generalist account executive support two or more internal clients? Does the account executive provide technical communication activities/services or does a separate unit provide these services separately or through the account executive? After organizing units first by activities/services, are there remaining employees that could be organized by internal clients? After organizing units first by activities/services, then by internal clients, are there remaining employees that could be organized by stakeholder group? Have we chosen the best way to organize x employees into x number of horizontal units to ensure the best deployment of employee talents, to ensure the best balance of technical, strategic and advisory support capabilities for the delivery of each discipline and to ensure a good degree of flexibility between and among specialist and generalist roles.
VERTICAL STRUCTURE Centralization Configuration
How many levels of stratification are needed? With four levels, is it best to employ two, three, or four managers and thus have a corresponding number of main units? How many supervisors and sub-units should be in each unit? Should each supervisor manage the same number of supervisors? With five levels, is it best to employ one, two or three directors and thus have a corresponding number of main units? How many managers should be in each unit? How many supervisors and sub-units should there be in each unit? Should each manager and supervisor manage the same number?
248 How would work flow between and among the units? Should a manager or a supervisor of a unit be as much a specialist in the subject matter as are the specialist employees in the unit? What degree of power and control over decisions does each director, manager and each supervisor hold? What are the management responsibilities of each director, manager and supervisor? Is it possible for the CCO to designate a second-in-command (2IC) position?
249 Figure 9.7: Diagnostic Model for More Than 100 Employees COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN: DIAGNOSTIC MODEL CHARACTERISTICS OF A DEPARTMENT OF MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES In departments of more than 100 employees, the organizational structure typically has five levels of hierarchy and moves from five to six levels of hierarchy at the top end. There are very few communication departments with six levels of stratification. A department of more than 100 employees is typically found in an extremely large organization, one that will be multi-divisional and have a wide geographical scope. The added level of stratification is required to cope with the increasing breadth of the communication department. As a department grows above 100 employees, typically the department has large regionally based communication units. The role of the CCO changes as well, with limited emphasis on a strategic communication role and most of the emphasis on a leadership role. Typically, large communication departments seem to operate in a matrix structural environment and a role a CCO would have in such an environment would be the navigation of the organization’s political and power control environment. IMPORTANT FACTORS
Here are the questions a CCO of a department of more than 100 employees should ask when designing the department’s structure:
ORGANIZATIONAL Structural Form Geographical Scope
What structural form does the organization as a whole employ? Is this form consistent across all business lines? Does the organization have regional operations? Are these regional, country wide, continentalwide and/or global? Is organizational and/or business line decision-making centralized or decentralized? Does it mirror organizational form? What advantages/disadvantages are there for the communication department to attempt to mirror the organization’s structure form and its geographical scope? Given the organization’s structural form and geographical scope, how does the communication department need to be structured to ensure it is ‘close to’ its internal clients?
CEO CHOICE Communication Integration CCO Reporting
Are other ‘staff functions’ (such as Human Resources; Finance; Planning; Purchasing; Information Management; etc.) integrated (centralized) into a single department or are they subsumed (decentralized) under each business line or line function? Are regional operations of staff functions integrated with the central staff function? Does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour a single, integrated communication department? If not, what communication disciplines does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour as separate, stand-alone departments (such as Marketing Communication; Investor Relations; Government Relations; etc.)? If not, what regional communication operations does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour as separate, stand-alone departments? If not, does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour functional reporting of all ‘communication units’ to the CCO? Does the CEO have a stated view on the number of direct reports and which staff/line functions report to the CEO now? Does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour direct CCO reporting to the CEO? If there are other, stand-alone communication departments to whom do they report? If not, does the CEO/Chair/executive team favour ‘unfettered access’ to them by the CCO?
CCO CHOICE Core Disciplines Employee ‘Talent’
What core disciplines does the communication department need to provide? If there are other, stand-alone communication departments, what disciplines do they provide? Is there overlap? What level of importance and priority should be given to each discipline (and thus ultimately the resources, ‘talent’ and positioning within the structure employed)?
250 Are there disciplines that could be fully outsourced and delivered by consultants? Are there disciplines that need to be delivered by employee specialists, or will generalists do? What are those disciplines and thus what is the ratio of specialists to generalists required? Within the employee talent pool, are their employees with up to date specialized skill sets that could act in specialist technical positions delivering activities/services? Within the employee talent pool, are their employees with strategic communication skills, advisory skills, management skills and/or leadership skills that could be employed in account executive or management positions? Are certain capabilities and competencies missing in the department? To acquire these, is training possible, is hiring needed and/or is contracting-out required?
HORIZONTAL STRUCTURE Complexity Specialization
What units (a unit consists of one or more employees) do we need to effectively deliver the core disciplines? Which of the three main approaches (by activities/services; by stakeholders; by internal client) should be used to as the primary means to organize employees into units to deliver each core discipline? Secondary approach? Tertiary approach? For example, with the discipline of internal communication, employees could be organized by technical communication activity/service (channel maintenance and content production) only, or they could be organized by internal client (HR) (channel maintenance, content production and advice for HR) only, or they could be organized by stakeholder group (employees) (channel maintenance, content production and advice for the CEO, managers, HR, etc.) only – or there could be a mix of units. What is the best way to organize by technical communication activities/services (such as: writing/editing; events/exhibits; graphic design and production; social media channels; audio/visual production; etc.)? Should this be one unit or a number of units? Should specialists staff each unit? Or, can generalists provide a range of activities/services? What is the best way to organize by stakeholder groups (such as local community; environmental; investor; customer; supplier; donor; member; employee, government; business partner; etc.)? How many stakeholders require a dedicated, specialist account executive? Can one generalist account executive support two or more stakeholders? Does the account executive provide technical communication activities/services or does a separate unit provide these services separately or through the account executive? What is the best way to organize by internal clients (such as operational business line; geographic office; staff functions like HR; Marketing; Finance; Legal; Sales; Fundraising; CEO’s office; etc.)? How many internal clients require a dedicated specialist account executive? Can one generalist account executive support two or more internal clients? Does the account executive provide technical communication activities/services or does a separate unit provide these services separately or through the account executive? After organizing units first by activities/services, are there remaining employees that could be organized by internal clients? After organizing units first by activities/services, then by internal clients, are there remaining employees that could be organized by stakeholder group? Have we chosen the best way to organize x employees into x number of horizontal units to ensure the best deployment of employee talents, to ensure the best balance of technical, strategic and advisory support capabilities for the delivery of each discipline and to ensure a good degree of flexibility between and among specialist and generalist roles.
VERTICAL STRUCTURE Centralization Configuration
How many levels of stratification are needed? With five levels, is it best to employ one, two or three directors and thus have a corresponding number of main units? How many managers and then supervisors and sub-units should be in each unit? Should each director manage the same number of managers and ultimately supervisors? With six levels, is it best to employ one, two or three vice-presidents (where the CCO is the executive vice-president) thus a corresponding number of main units? How many directors should be in each unit? How many managers under each director? How many supervisors and sub-units should there be in each unit? Should each manager and supervisor manage the same number? How would work flow between and among the units?
251 Should a manager or a supervisor of a unit be as much a specialist in the subject matter as are the specialist employees in the unit? What degree of power and control over decisions does each vide-president, director, manager and each supervisor hold? What are the management responsibilities of each vice-president, director, manager and supervisor Is it possible for the CCO to designate a second-in-command (2IC) position?
252
Appendices A. Literature Review References Anand, N. and Daft, R. L. (2007). What is the Right Organization Design? Working Paper Series (December 7) Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=961013 Bartlett, C A., and. Ghoshal. S 1987). Managing across borders: New organizational responses. MIT Sloan Management Review 29, no. 1 (fall): 43-54. Beniger, J. R. (1986). The control revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bowditch, J. L., & Buono, A. F. (2001). A primer on organizational behaviour (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Bretschneider, S., Marc-Aurele, F., & J, W. (Ed.) (2001). Best practice research: A methodological guide for the perplexed. Journal of Public Administration (20), 417-429 Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A casual model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chandler, A. D. (1966). Strategy and structure. New York: Doubleday. Chandler, A. D. (1977). The invisible hand: The managerial revolution in America business. Boston: Harvard University Press. Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1-22. Child, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1991). Organizational theory and structural perspectives on management. Journal of Management, 17(4), 789-803. Connor, P. E. (1992). Decision-making participation patterns: The role of organizational context. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 213-231. Conrad, C., & Poole, M. S. (1998). Strategic organizational communication: Into the twenty-first century. Fort Worth , TX: Harcourt Brace. Cornelissen, J. P., & Harris, P. (2004). Independencies between marketing and public relations disciplines as correlates of communication organization. Journal of Marketing Management, 20, 237-264. Cornelissen, J. P., Lock, A. R., & Gardiner, H. (2001). The organization of external communication disciplines: An integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. International Journal of Advertising 20(1), 67-88. Culbertson, H. M., & Chen, N. (1996). International public relations: A comparative analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davis, S. M., & Lawrence, P. R. (1977). Matrix. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley.
253 Dess, G. G., Rasheed, A. M. A., McLaughlin, K. J., & Priem, R. L. (1995). The new corporate architecture. Academy of Management Executive 9(3), 7-18. Dibrell, C. C., & Miller, T. R. (2002). Organizational design: The continuing influence information technology. Management Decision, 40(6), 620-627. Doole, I. & Lowe, R. (2008) International Marketing Strategy. London, Cengage Learning. Doty, D.H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit equifinality and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1196-1250. Druker, P. (1994). The age of transformation. Atlantic Monthly, 274(5), 49-56. Duncan , R. (1979). What is the right organization structure? Decision tree analysis provides the answer. Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 59-79. Engwall, L. & Kipping, M. (1998) Management Education in Historical Perspective. Manchester, Manchester University Press, UK. European Communication Monitor. Retrieved from: http://www.communicationmonitor.eu/ Fleisher, C. S., & Burton, S. (1995). Taking stock of corporate benchmarking practices: panacea or pandora's box. Public Relations Review, 21(1), 1-20. Fleisher, C. S., & Burton, S. (1996). Benchmarking : evaluating the public affairs operation/ function. In L. B. Dennis (Ed.), Practical public affairs in an era of change: A communicators guide for business. Government and college. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Freitag, A., & Quesinberry Stokes, A. (2009). Global public relations: Spanning borders, spanning cultures. Abingdon , Oxon: Routledge. Fritz, R. (1996). Corporate Tides: The inescapable laws of organizational structure. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Galbraith, J., Downey, D., & Kates, A. (2002). Designing dynamic organizations. New York: Amacom. Gannon, M.J., & Pillai, R. (2012). Understanding global cultures. (5th ed). Sage. Gilsdorf, J. W. (1992). Written corporate policy on communicating: A delphi study. Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 316-347. Grunig, J. E. (1976). Organizations and public relations: testing a communications theory. Journalism Monographs, 46. Grunig, J.E. (Ed.) (1992). Excellence in public relations and communications management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E. (1992). Symmetrical systems of internal communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communications management (pp. 531576). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
254 Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1989). Towards a theory of public relations behaviour of organizations: Review of a program of research. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 1, pp. 27-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E., & Hon, L. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt , T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt Rhinehart & Winston. Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E and Dozier, D.M. (2002). Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organizations: Form, process and transformation. New York: Wiley. Hage, J., & Aikin, M. (1967). Progress, change and organizational properties- a comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 503-519. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper -Collins. Handy, C. (1989). The age of unreason. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Holtzhausen, D. (2002). The effects of a divisionalized and decentralized organizational structure on Journal of Communication Management, 6(4), 343-339. Hull, F., & Hage, J. (1982). Organizing for innovation: Beyond Burns and Stalker's organic type. Sociology, 16, 564-577. Jablin., F. M. (1987). Formal organizational structure. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 389-419). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovations for productivity in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster. Katz, D. & Khan, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations New York: Wiley. Kotler, P., & Mindak, W. (1978). Marketing and public relations; should they be partners or rivals? Journal of Marketing, 42, 13-20. Koul, S. (2009). Communication structure of the public sector in India: An empirical analysis. Corporate Communications : An International Journal, 14(3), 320-332. Krone, K. J. (1992). A comparison of organizational structural and relationship effects on subordinates' upward influence choices. Communication Quarterly, 40, 1-15. Krone, K. J. (1994). Structuring constraints on perceptions of upward influence and supervisory relations. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 215-226. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard Business School.
255 Likely, F. (1998). Reorganize your communication function: ten structural models for the new look organization. Strategic Communication Management (August/September), 28-33. Limaye, M.R, and Victor, D.A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Business Communication Research: State of the Art and Hypotheses for the 1990s. Journal of Business Communication June 28: 277-299. Macey, B., Peterson, M. F., & Norton, L. W. (1989). A test of participation theory work redesign field setting: Degree of participation and comparison site contrasts. Human Relations, 42, 1095-1165. Macleod, L., Scriven, J., & Wayne, F. S. (1992). Gender and management level differences in the oral communication patterns of bank managers. Journal of Business Communication, 29, 343-365. McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational systematics: Taxonomy, evolution, classification. Berkeley: University of California Press. McMillan, E. (2002). Considering organisation structure and design from a complexity paradigm perspective. In G. Frizzelle & H. Richards (Eds.), Tackling industrial complexity: The ideas that make a difference. Cambridge: Institute of Manufacturing. McPhee, R. D. (1985). Formal structure and organizational communication. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational Communications: Traditional themes and new directions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McPhee, R. D., & Poole, M. S. (2001). Organizational structures and configurations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication. Thousand Oaks , CA: Sage. Meyer, H. D. (1995). Organizational environments and organizational discourse: Bureaucracy between two worlds. Organizational Science, 6, 32-43. Miller, D. (1987). Strategy making and structure: Analysis and implications for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 7-32. Miller, D., Droje, C., & Toulouse, J. M. (1988). Strategic process and content as mediators between organizational context and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 544-569. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strategic world of organizations. New York: Free Press. Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
256 Myers, S., Smith, H. P., & Martin, L. L. (2004). Conducting best practice research in public affairs. University of central Florida. Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L.(1997). Competing by design: The power of oganizational architecture. New York: Oxford University Press. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1999). The organisation of the future: Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 21st Century. Organisational Dynamics, 28(1), 45-60. Overman, E., & Boyd, J. (1994). Best practice research and post bureaucratic reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(1), 67-83. Pascale, R., Athos, A. (1981) The art of Japanese management, London: Penguin Peters, T., Waterman, R. (1982) In search of excellence. New York, London: Harper & Row. Pfeffer, J. (1978). Organizational design. Arlington Heights , Ill: AHM Publishing. Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage. New York; Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1986). (Ed.) Competition in global industries. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. (1987). The multinational mission. New York: Free Press. Pugh, D. S. (1973). The measurement of organization structures: Does context determine form? Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 19-34. Robbins, S. P. (1990). Organizational theory: Structure, design and applications (3rd ed.). Englewood-Cliffs, NJ. Scott, W. R. (2004). Reflections on half-century of organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 1-21. Segal-Horn, S., & Faulkner, D. (2010). Understanding global strategy. Andover: South Western Cengage Learning. Schneider (aka Grunig) L. A. (1985). The role of public relations in four organizational types. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 567-576. Shrader, C. B., Lincoln, J. R., & Hoffman, A. N. (1989). The network structures of organizations: Effects of task contingencies and distributional form. Human Relations, 42, 43-66. Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity, Proceedings of the American Psychological Society. Smeltzer, L. R., & Fann, G. L. (1989). Comparison of manager communication patterns in small entrepreneurial organizations and large, mature organizations. Group and Organizational Studies, 14, 198-215. Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., & Coleman, H. J. (1992). Managing 21st Century network organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 20(3), 5-20.
257 Sriramesh, K., & Vercic, D. (2009). The global public relations handbook: Theory research and practice. New York: Routledge. Stanford, N. (2007). Guide to organisation design: Creating high performing and adaptable enterprises. London: The Economist with Profile Books Ltd. Strategic Communication & Public Relations Center, School of Communication & Journalism, University of Southern California, Annenberg. PR Gap Studies. Retrieved from: http://annenberg.usc.edu/CentersandPrograms/ResearchCenters/SPRC/PrevGAP. aspx Sterne, G. D. (2008). Public relations among the functions of management: A New Zealand perspective. Public Relations Journal, 2(3). Stokes, A. (2005). A Study of the Relationship between Organizational Structure and Public Relations Roles. M.A. Thesis. University of South Florida. Thorelli, H. (1986). Networks between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Joiurnal, 7, 37-51. Ulieru, M., & Unland, R. (2004). Enabling technologies for the creation and restructuring process of emergent enterprise alliances. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 3(1). Van Leuven, J. (1991). Corporate organizing strategies and the scope of public relations departments. Public Relations Review, 17(3), 279-291. Wakefield, R. I. (2009). Public Relations Contingencies in a Globalized World Where Even “Glocalization” is Not Sufficient. Public Relations Journal, 3(4) Weber, M. (Ed.). (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations New York: Free Press. Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. London, Sage Publications. Weisbord, M.R, (1978) Organizational diagnosis: A workbook of theory and practice Addison-Wesley Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: The Free Press.
258 B. List of Qualitative Research Participant Organizations SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Mauritius
Africa
Digital media
Private
India
India
Banking
Private
Switzerland
Worldwide
Technology
Non-Profit
India
India
Children and Youth Sports
Private
Denmark
Worldwide
Technology/Manufacturing
Private
India
Worldwide
Multi-sector
Private
United States
Worldwide
Medical Manufacturer
Private
Canada
North America
Banking Services
Non-Profit
United States
Worldwide
Services to Military Personnel
Non-Profit Public Corporation
Canada
Local/Municipal
Utility
Non-Profit
Canada
Canada
Emergency Relief
Private
Brazil
Brazil/Argentina
Pharmaceuticals
Private
Brazil
Worldwide
Steel
Private
Brazil
Worldwide
Industrials/Conglomerate
Non-Profit Public Corporation
Brazil
Brazil (State)
Utility
Non-Profit
Brazil
Worldwide
Social Responsibility
Private
Chile
Chile
Banking
Non-Profit Public Corporation
Peru
Peru
Utility
Private
United Kingdom
Worldwide
Wines, Spirits and Beer Producer
Private
US and Belgium
Worldwide
Industrial Chemicals and Technology
Private
United Kingdom
Worldwide
Oil and Gas Energy
Private
United Kingdom
Worldwide
Water, Electricity and Gas Utility
Private
UK and Netherlands
Worldwide
Consumer Foods and Household Goods
Private
Germany
Worldwide
Financial Services
Private
Netherlands
Worldwide
Consumer Electronics
Private
Netherlands
Worldwide
Energy
259 C. Interview Summaries SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Mauritius
Africa
Digital media
This corporation operates in 47 countries on the African continent and adjacent Indian Ocean islands. The head office is based in Mauritius, and operational office in Johannesburg, which is where the interviewee is situated. The Communication function is divided between three departments: Corporate Affairs, Marketing (for Marcom) and PR and Publicity. The heads of all these three divisions sit on the highest-level management committee. Corporate Affairs takes care of public affairs and communication with regulatory bodies, legal, technical, and business matters. PR and Publicity handles media relations and publicity. HR is a separate function headed by a General Manager. The size of the communication function is very small. In the Headquarters (in Johannesburg), the organization has 4 people in Corporate Affairs and 3 in Public Relations/Publicity. In most of the other countries – excluding very small operations – the organization has ONE dedicated PR person to conduct local communication. Communication strategy is devised at the headquarters in Johannesburg and locally implemented (with needed modifications) in each country (the interviewee called this “localization of the strategy in each country”). The interviewee stated that the “communication strategy for international communications (i.e. Africa) [are] set by [her] department in Johannesburg. Any investor related matters are handled by the communications department of our holding company.” The interviewee (head of Corporate Affairs) has 5 people reporting to her directly. This includes Communications (internal & external), Corporate Social responsibility and Stakeholder management, Portuguese and French communication specialists and Website plus administration assistant. The PR people in each country report directly to the respective General Managers in their country with a dotted line into Johannesburg. In each sub-function there is only one position. The head of Corporate Affairs reports directly to the COO who is based in Mauritius. However, strategic
260 communication decisions are made directly with the company President who is based in Johannesburg. The structure of the communication department is organized around functions (such as investor relations or consumer relations) and language requirements given the complexity of the pan-African operations. This organizational structure was determined by the “specialized skills required for each function,” according to the interviewee. The primary strength that the interviewee saw in such a strategy and structure was that there is consistency in what is distributed by the company. However, the interviewee pointed out, the weakness is that specialist communication is needed regionally and that is lacking. When asked what she thought had the greatest influence on the communication function and structure in her organization, the interviewee replied: “I believe the type of business – digital media – plus the environmental factors in Africa have the strongest influence on communication. Both digital media and the African environment are fast changing and dynamic and require ongoing changes to strategy.” She continued that: “there is a high importance on organizational structure for strategy and planning.” She said that: “one of the greatest challenges is often to get buy-in from each of the countries which enables us to roll out successful communications.” “Rigid structures are constrain high performance of the communication department” she said, and continued that: “all functional areas need to operate across all areas of the business.” When questioned about outsourcing of communication activities, she said that outsourcing was on the increase and currently she outsourced about 25 – 30% of the work. Much of the outsourced work requires specialized technical knowledge that is not available in-house.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
India
India
Banking
The communication function in this organization has evolved over a period of time. When the interviewee came here 4½ years ago, internal communication was
261 being handled by HR and external communication was given to a couple of junior executives and it was “more reactive.” Communication was being handled by the CFO who delegated the work to the junior executives. Upon arrival, the interviewee went about making changes such as setting up an internal and external communication component, among other things. Currently, the now integrated communication department has grown to 20 members in four areas: external communication (10), online media management (2), knowledge management (3-4), and internal communication (3). External communication consists of customer relations, media relations (150 – 200 e-mails a day), investor relations (this bank is listed both on the Bombay and NYC stock exchanges) and regulatory relations (Reserve Bank of India, SEBI – securities and exchanges commission of India). They have a separate General Manager for RBI relations, being a bank and the key institution being vital to the bank. Internal communication at the bank has been handled by HR but since the interviewee moved in, he has tried to get them to look at internal communication holistically and corporate communication has been working with them to do things such as ivoice, which is a video newsletter, etc. A GM who reports to the Executive Director to whom the head of corporate communication also reports does brand management separately. Public Affairs is managed by a different department called Government Management Group. The interviewee stated that whereas in the past (1980s and 1990s) the public affairs function was a “wheeler and dealer” type function (where personal influence was paramount), things are changing now. The interviewee noted that whereas strategy for corporate communications is centralized at the head office in Bombay (with regional units in the cities of Chennai, Kolkota, and Delhi) “to avoid crises” … “we do not have a centralized marketing department.” The bank has 5 executive directors who are members of the Board: Managing Director and CEO, Retail head (credit cards, mortgages, etc.), HR head, CFO (legal and finance), and Corporate and international banking. The interviewee coordinates the communication work of each of these senior managers when asked. GM and upwards would be part of senior management here. The Board is the supreme body. The Executive Director to whom the interviewee reports sits on the Board. So,
262 essentially, the interviewee sits below the Board level. “I am a functional executive,” the interviewee stated. The interviewee poignantly noted that corporate communication at his organization was “a work in progress” that had not been elevated to a strategic function. He hoped that one day the Head of Corporate Communication would report directly to the CEO because “sensitivities get heightened and addressed” when the communication executive is able to offer a different perspective based on intelligence gathered through the communication process. The interviewee gave two instances in his bank as examples where damage to reputation could have been avoided if the communication manager had been “heard” before policy decisions were taken. “Many a crisis to reputation can be avoided by giving communication a seat at the decisionmaking table” he stated. He also stated that there was a dire need for corporate affairs (defined by him as “getting our views across to various stakeholders”) and corporate communication to come closer together.
SECTOR
REGIONAL LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Denmark
Worldwide
Technology; Hardware Manufacturing
Although the interviewee is in-charge of Corporate Communication for the regional operation in Denmark, he is very familiar with the communication function of the organization in Europe, as well as globally. He provided very useful (and confidential information) that has helped put this summary together. Within Denmark, corporate communication is a staff function reporting to the regional general manager. His primary function is public relations, press relations and internal communication (nonHR matters). He does work closely with HR on communication matters outside of HRrelated issues. Marketing is a separate function within the company but he works closely with the marketing department including discussing upcoming issues at the beginning of each quarter. “We do not have separate functions for investor relations, public affairs, etc. in Denmark … [as] it is handled centrally in the US” the interviewee said. Only one person deals with public affairs in Europe, basically addressing the EU
263 on these matters. Branding is also centrally handled in the US. Two people handle the corporation’s regional communication function in Denmark: the interviewee is the strategist and another colleague does most of the technical aspects, such as the intranet. More than two-thirds of the work (almost all of it technical) is outsourced to two public relations agencies. When asked why he chose these agencies to work with as well as why two agencies (and not one) were selected, he stated that the choice of agencies was not his but came from the heads of the three key operating divisions of the organization. They drive the business and have a lot of clout in all matters including this, it was apparent. So, the head of regional communication has to abide by these decisions and it seemed he had not much say in such matters. When asked about the “small size” of the regional communication department, he stated that the decision about the size of the department is also made at HQ in the US. As it is a consumeroriented company, the size of the regional communication department is directly related to the volume of business. Larger markets get larger regional communication departments. However, he has found creative ways of “expanding” the size of the communication department. For example, ten years ago, he appointed (and trained) 25 spokespersons for media relations. They have been authorized to speak directly with members of the media on matters pertaining to their specialty. So, within his-own sphere of influence, he has decentralized aspects of the regional communication function but said that he could not have done this in today’s communication structure within the company (because of over-centralization) suggesting that over the past ten years (especially since 2006) the communication operation has become more centralized. He stated that some of the other companies were trying to follow this practice that has been in place in for the organization in Denmark for 10 years. The 5 Directors of various departments form the Senior Management team at the regional organization in Denmark – the dominant coalition. Although the interviewee is not a member of this dominant coalition, he attends their meetings and often they ask him for advice. He says that he has high credibility with them and so they rely on his advice, trust him, and often heed his advice. His credibility comes from his long experience, mention of his good work by business journalists who ranked him among the best public relations people in Denmark. The journalists ranked PR managers for being open,
264 offering quick and correct information, and connecting them with the appropriate spokesperson (source of information) when they needed background information, etc. When asked how the current structure of the communication department affected the contributions that the communication function can make to the organization, the interviewee lamented the small size of his regional communication department and said: “I can do better with more people.” He said larger communication departments can obviously do more whether in Europe or globally for his company. “I have no one here to discuss strategy and so often I have those discussions with the two public relations agencies we work with.” Two factors have contributed to the current size and structure of the communication department: CEO philosophy (since the current CEO took charge in 2005/06) and the current financial crisis that has affected global sales for the organization. The extreme centralization of decisions pertaining to the communication function has hurt the company, according to the interviewee. “Greater autonomy will provide communication managers the opportunity to align their strategies and functions to the local environment for such a global company” he said “whereas overall communication could be centralized there was a need to decentralize at least some of the function so that it could be localized.”
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Non-Profit
India
India
Children and Youth Sports
Founded in 1999 in Mumbai, India the organization has grown significantly only in the last couple of years. It has offices in London and Dubai (mainly for fundraising) and seeks to help empower children and young adults through the medium of sports and games. “Sports for development” is our vision, the interviewee stated. He also stated that the organization likes to encourage a lifetime of sport and currently helps over 100,000 children with a staff of seven full-time and part-time staff, plus 160 - 200 volunteers mostly in three states of India. The Marketing and Communication department has a full-time senior manager and a half-time associate in addition to the interviewee. The interviewee is on a 66% per week commitment (4 days) and works as a private consultant for two days managing his own business. The function/department oversees four core areas: corporate communication (communicating the core
265 philosophy and vision of the organization), program communication (sharing program goals and objectives and processes with stakeholders), relationship communication (especially with donors and volunteers), and marketing (event-based and initiativebased). It does so using 6 – 7 core messages that revolve around awareness, belief, and purpose. The organization also has a separate HR department that looks after recruitment of employees, administration of the payroll, employee engagement, etc. The offices in Dubai and London are primarily oriented toward fundraising and so have a very small number of staff there. The interviewee has the title of Head of Sustainability and is a trained physician (medical doctor) who also has earned a MBA and thereby obtained communication and management expertise. He reports directly to the CEO and is in constant communication with the CEO on all matters. In addition, he takes the lead on communication issues when the dominant coalition meets. The dominant coalition consists of three members: the CEO and the Head of Sustainability and a member of the program that is being discussed. In this respect, one can say that the DC is situational with two members remaining constant and the third being determined based on the program that is being discussed. “I have a large amount of authority,” the interviewee stated. Although the interviewee has been on the payroll of the organization only for seven months he has served as a volunteer since 2000 just after the organization was founded and therefore has a lot of credibility with the founder and CEO. “I have the liberty to do what I want to use the least amount of resources to get the best results for our organization,” the interviewee stated describing his influence as communication specialist in the organization. The organization outsources copywriting and some technical communication functions to a design agency. When asked if given a “magic wand” and thereby the ability to bring whatever changes he wanted to the communication function, the interviewee stated he is very happy with the current structure of the department and the communication priorities and functions. He feels they are using their resources optimally to meet the organization’s goals and objectives with the current number of staff and division of functions as well.
266 SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Switzerland
Worldwide
Technology
The interviewee noted that in her opinion there are just three factors that affect the communication structure of an organization: first the strategy and targets of an institution or company; second the current necessities because of new situations; and third the abilities of the staff of the communication department. She also opined that change in the organization and in the situation (the environment) in which a company works has the greatest influence on the structure of the communication department. When asked what were the attributes and best practices associated with highperforming communication departments, she replied: “culture of change is one of the fundamental factors.” As the Head of Corporate Communication of a large multinational operating in over 80 countries, she reports directly to the CEO and oversees 107 people in her department, including the Head of Corporate Communication for the Americas in Detroit and Head of Corporate Communication for Asia-Pacific in Shanghai. She also sits on the highest-level management committee. The company has communication functions based in Detroit for the Americas, Shanghai for Asia-Pacific and Stuttgart for Europe. The strategy for “international” communication departments is set by her and by the heads of media and public relations and of internal communication. She says that the strategy, although set centrally by these three, is then localized. When asked what is involved in localizing the strategy and mixing the international with the local, she responded: “we discuss the strategy within a global communicators meeting every two years.” When asked how the organization’s communication strategies are localized and which factors are taken into account when doing such localization (culture, political system, etc.), the interviewee stated that the communication heads work directly with the regional or business unit presidents signifying that there is a direct link between communication and the heads of these regional operating units. When asked about the rationale for this organizational structure, she said: “you need the direct information for your work; dotted lines to me because I lead the communicators in the field of communication.” When asked whether she had seen any weaknesses in the current communication structure, she responded: “No weaknesses.” She said that “change in the organization and in the situation the company works” were the two factors that have
267 the greatest influence on the communication function and the structure in her organization. When asked what are the major trends relating to communication department structure, functions, budget, staffing and competencies she replied: “More and more people have to work together in project teams, not in departments; less budgets; more E-Communications-Competencies.” When asked in what way does the structure of the department help the PR/C department be a high performing one, she responded: “You can be more professional and quicker with the right organizational structure.” She stated that 90% of their work is done in-house.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
India
Worldwide
Multi-sector Conglomerate
This group of companies is a $26 billion conglomerate operating in 32 countries with over 40,000 employees. The interviewee heads the Communication Division at its Headquarters in Mumbai, India. The company has 16 employees in corporate communication globally, with 9 of them based in India. Human Resources is a separate division, as is Marketing. Of the ten business sectors the company has globally, only three have a marketing function and the rest are business-to-business (B2B). The marketing communication (marcom) segments, in these three marketing units, are helped by the Communication Division. The interviewee specifically stated that corporate communication has much more power than marcom in the organization: “Communication plays an important role in this company” he stated. The interviewee has a marcom background and stated: “I was hired for my ability to strategize.” “But, I had to prove over my first six months in the company that I could contribute my credibility and value add to the company.” “Now, I make the communication strategies in this organization.” Communication is centralized in this company and the interviewee says in most other big groups in India as well. The company has a Global Chairman, Indian Chairman, and Group President (Europe). The interviewee reports to all three as needed. The CCO is a member of the dominant coalition (Executive Committee) and participates actively in the monthly meetings of the Committee. “The Executive Committee listens to me most of the time when it comes to communication functions,” he stated, “only 1% of the time they [EC] may ask me to back off.” When asked to
268 address the strengths and weaknesses of his role as such a valued member of the EC, he said that the fact that he was able to “control the whole thing [communication function]” was a strength and a weakness. The company does outsource technical activities. The interviewee stated that he has an external PR agency, an Investor Relations agency, and an Ad agency to work as “foot soldiers” – referring to technical functions. The current structure of the communication department has evolved in the past 4-5 years, the interviewee stated. When asked whether 9 persons in the Communication department was small, he said “I do not need to invest in additional resources right now” given the outsourcing that is also done. However, he said that the company was going through a rebranding exercise in preparation for the 2014 centenary celebrations of the founding of the company and so there will be a restructuring of the communication department. “We are generalists now,” the interviewee stated describing the communication function. “Tomorrow [in due course], we want to move to [being] specialists.”
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Brazil
Brazil/Argentina
Pharmaceuticals
The company, founded in 1973, is family-owned and led by the son of the founding proprietor. The core business of the company is pharmaceuticals. Local legislation imposes important restrictions on the public advertising of pharmaceutical products. This fact needs to be taken into account when analyzing the communication practices of the company. The company has always promoted the therapeutic properties of its products with the medical community. Corporate Communication is relatively new and began its activities with the development of communication practices with internal and external publics. Today, the company has 3,600 employees. Company culture is authoritarian and results in highly centralized management practices and decision-making. Corporate Communication is subordinated to a senior director who, in turn, is directly
269 accountable to the President of the company. Communications is essentially informative and is responsible for: (a) Corporate Communications; (b) Events & Sponsorship; (c) Social Responsibility which includes the Company Not for Profit Institute; (d) Environmental Management; (e) Health & Occupational Safety; (f) Customer Relations; (g) New Business. The company grew 22% during 2009 and, despite the world economic crisis, the President expects the company to move from the 5th to the 3rd position in the ranking of national pharmaceutical companies during 2010. The company’s first incursion in the international market occurred during 2009 through the acquisition of a pharmaceutical company in a neighboring country. There is, however, no definition regarding the local management of communication activities. Despite the fact that Communication is drawing the attention of Senior Management, “there is still a long road ahead.” The authoritarian and centralizing personal leadership of the President is still the primary element to be considered. The president firmly believes that “the factory floor is the most important part of the company.”
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Brazil
Worldwide
Steel
The company was founded 109 years ago, continues to be family-owned and is currently in the fifth generation of succession. The company has approximately forty thousand employees. In the Americas, the company is the leading steel producer and one of the major worldwide suppliers of special steels. The company has factories and offices in 15 nations and is also the second largest worldwide producer of automotive steels. The Office of Corporate Communication and Institutional Affairs - established during 2006 - is staffed by 44 Communications professionals. The majority of the staff is physically located in the headquarters office in a regional capital city. The remaining staff is housed worldwide. Outsourced communications agencies provide technical
270 support. The Office of Corporate Communication and Institutional Affairs reports and works directly with President of the company. The Office acts in a very fluid personal way and is very close to the dominant coalition. Companies, in the steel business, are either state or family-owned. Today, however, there is a worldwide association that is responsible for understanding the dynamics of the steel business, and for demonstrating that communication is extremely important to the interests of the sector. The conglomerate uses its business management system to deploy core and individual personal values. Evaluations are conducted every two years to assess individual and business results. What the conglomerate wants is the “alignment of people and processes.” Despite the fact that communication is understood as a process and that the Office of Corporate Communication and Institutional Affairs’ structure is globalized, family values - which have persisted for five generations - are ingrained in the policies and values of the organization. Company culture is extremely strong and creates a “marriage or divorce” relation. The core values of the company are simplicity in decision-making, the objective search for results and personal respect. Policies and guidelines were designed by the Office and are deployed worldwide in all the business units. Policies and guidelines are documented in a lean, direct manner that accordingly addresses specific local needs. A general meeting with the participation of all business is held once a year to discuss communication policies and practices. The Office has to meet an important challenge that requires the measurement of objectives and the evaluation of results. The closing remark of the interview emphasized the need “to search for consistent metrics.” Otherwise “it is impossible to manage what can’t be measured!”
271 SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Brazil
Worldwide
Industrial / Conglomerate
The company is a multinational conglomerate with sixty-two thousand (62,000) employees and business in 15 countries in the five continents. The business of the company is 85% industrial. The principal focus of interest are paper and cellulose, cement, agricultural industry, energy, metals, and finance. The company is a 4th generation family organization that has preserved family values and has placed great emphasis on professionalizing the business. In point of fact, the conglomerate is considered the best family-owned company of the world! There are 65 communication professionals deployed in an Institutional Relations Office, with specific management responsibility for brands and Corporate Communication. Over and above the Office, each business unit has its own management and Communication team, which is responsible for deploying corporate policies and guidelines. The Office has the full support of Senior Management. The principal objective of the Office is to furnish consultancy and guidelines for the business units and to identify opportunities for synergy, alignment, and for the sharing of good practices that contribute to the deployment of world-class communication throughout the organization. In practical terms, this brings about qualified dialogue with every public, correct needs identification, scenario identification, and defining alternatives, which contribute to the executive decision-making process. Senior Management considers that communication is necessary for “the reputation of the organization and for the returns and profit of each individual stockholder.”
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Non-Profit Public Corporation
Brazil
Brazil (State level)
Utility
The company was formerly state-owned. Presently, it is a public non-profit corporation where the State is the principal shareholder. The company, with seventeen thousand (17,000) employees and 17 regional offices, is responsible for providing water and sewage services to 50% of all municipalities in the region. The company is
272 responsible for the water and sewage of twenty-six (26) million people and is the most important water and sewage services company in the country and in the geographic region. After taking into consideration its customer base, the company is the fifth largest water and sewage services company in the world! The Office of Communication was established during 2009 and employs 62 professionals who are either full-time public employees or market hires (freelance consultants). The Office has three advisory bodies: Institutional & Financial Support, Press Relations and Advertising. There are three management units: (a) Internal communication, corporate identity, and regional offices; (b) Communication Process Management & Medias; (c) Events & Promotional Activities. The main roles of the Office are to inform customers of the services furnished by the company, furnish relevant information on bids and projects, promote environmental education, promote new services, implement sound communication practices with internal publics, maintain close relations with the media, manage regulatory affairs, deploy stockholder relation practices, implement community relations, and conduct research such as the “Clean Water Project”. The Office is subordinated directly to the President who, because of his personal management style, requires the presence of the Senior Communicator in all his decision-making. The Office of Communication is currently regarded as a strategic area for the company. It is responsible for institutional, commercial and corporate communication, and also responsible for unifying the policy and guidelines of company language and communication. At the weekly meeting organized by the Office of Communication, a senior representative of the State Energy and Environment Office and a senior representative the State Communication Office are in attendance. Since the Office is relatively new, there is the need to promote the importance of communication with other areas of the organization. The company has deployed a modern style of management, contrary to what might be expected of a former civil service company. The communication model adopted by the Office is greatly influenced by (a) the existence of services which affect the well being of all citizens in the region, (b) the personal style of the CEO and (c) the
273 history of the company. There is great optimism regarding the structure and dynamics of the Office. The Head of the Office believes that this, in part, is due to his “legal training which facilitates the negotiation process.”
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Non-Profit
Brazil
Worldwide
Social Responsibility
The NGO, founded in 1998, is a non-profit organization that is chartered as a civil organization of public interest. Its mission is to mobilize, create awareness and assist organizations to manage their business in a socially responsible manner and to partner with said organizations in achieving a just and sustainable society. The NGO implements its projects with the participation of organizations from many different parts of the world. The NGO has 50 employees. Despite its size, the NGO is a renowned non-profit organization that is dedicated to the third sector and social responsibility and is a benchmark for similar organizations throughout the world. Communication is an executive management unit that is composed of specific units that are responsible for events, press relations, publications and institutional communications. The unit employs a five professionals and one trainee. The principal responsibility of the unit is to manage the image of the NGO with its publics, disseminate the strategic value of the NGO, undertake research, publish high quality manuals and publications, and manage the advertising campaigns which are carried out by an external agency. The unit has participated since 2009 in senior corporate meetings and is an important player in strategic decision-making. Until 2008, the unit was more technical in nature and did not have access to Senior Management. It is extremely clear that the NGO has been guided by the vision of two former CEOs, who brilliantly represented the NGO and knew the power of communication.
274 The skilled use of social media is one of the more important trends in communication that was highlighted by the manager of the unit. The compact organizational structure of the NGO results in hard work in many different activities. Independent of non-competitive wages, professionals like working in the NGO mainly because of its “reputation and prestige.” The culture of the NGO places the CEO in first place before the history of the organization. The strengths of the NGO are its credibility with internal and external publics, the annual conference and its publications. Its main weakness is “the chronic lack of financial resources which hampers the hiring of professionals for all areas of the organization.” Despite the size and structure of the organization, the NGO was the first to develop and deploy indicators for social responsibility and sustainability used by a large number of organizations throughout the region.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Chile
Chile
Banking
The company is a private bank specializing in savings & deposits, securities brokerage, asset management and insurance. The bank was founded in 1937 by an immigrant from the Middle East and by a group of private entrepreneurs - for the purpose of providing financial support to small and medium business organizations. The bank is still owned by the founding family and, throughout its history, has been characterized by service innovation and the intensive use of information technology. The bank was severely affected by the debt crisis of the '80s, and was first to prepay its debt to the Central Bank. On the day that payment was made, the president of the bank passed away just as he announced the news to company employees. The bank is currently the third largest private bank in terms of bank loans and fourth in number of clients. The bank is a member of the International Confederation of Popular Banks, an international organization based in Brussels that congregates cooperative banks worldwide.
275 The Communication and Business Responsibility Management Unit has reported directly to the General Manager since 2004. The unit has a staff of five (5), which includes a Manager, an Assistant Internal Communication Manager, a Social Responsibility Manager and Public Relations Manager and two assistants. The Unit has a countrywide focus. The few foreign branch offices play a minor role in the business of the bank. The bank has recently recognized the value of communication that continues to be asymmetric. The manager interviewed expressed that she “would like to participate in the planning of the bank,” and she continually referred to the “strategic objectives we would like to achieve.” This reveals the authoritarian features of bank culture and the fact that the Communication and Business Responsibility Management Unit has a great deal to achieve. The interviewee participates in major decisions only when there are major possible impacts on the communication of the bank.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Non-profit Public Corporation
Peru
Peru
Utility
The organization is responsible for the regulation of water services in a nation facing severe drought, where cities are scrambling to find new water sources. Communication is housed in the End-User Management Unit and is managed by a supervisor, who would otherwise be a manager, two Communication Science professionals and four support personnel. The unit reports to the General Manager. The General Manager is the visible face of the agency and the principal authority of the organization. The unit is responsible for the production of information which assures broad coverage in all sectors and media which are relevant to the interests of the Agency, establishing and maintaining relations with regional authorities, institutions and public media, and the strategic linkage with geographically dispersed regional water agencies.
276 Communication is dedicated to the production of press releases, briefings and bulletins, maintaining the agency in social media networks, and the production of information for distribution in regional offices. Senior management is authoritarian. The Governing Council can request the presence of specific, individual managers. This, however, is not a normal organizational practice. The history of the organization plays an important role in the organizational culture of the agency. The authority and the political weight of the agency are important factors in all decision-making. The strengths of the unit are the fact that processes are rapid, and the fact that “being linked to the end-user platform allows us to feel the pulse of every manifestation in the environment and to react - in a fast and efficient manner with effective feedback to our end-users.” There is the still the generalized perception that Communication is not important. The supervisor emphasized that: “it appears to me that over time we have conquered our space, and have shown that the reduced or regular prestige of the agency was a direct result of the work undertaken by Communication. Other management units have explicitly recognized our accomplishments.” The interview highlights that the development of new interactive vehicles for Communication, such as digital TV, means specific skills require improvement. “Conflict resolution is a necessary skill to better prepare for conflicts and to establish policies and behaviors which will enable us to meet the challenges which may affect us in the future.”
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Germany
Worldwide
Financial Services
The Communications Function within this financial services company tends towards decentralization, although the Director of Group Communications does not use a hierarchical lens to consider and decide on an organizational structure. In his view,
277 the discussion on whether an organization is centralised or decentralised is not motivating for staff, especially not if the design is truly centralised. In his view, it is much more important to look at other features of an organization. The Director of Group Communications explains that he works with a set of minimum standards that sets out what the whole Communication organization is expected to have in place and deliver. According to the interviewee, there is “no perfect structure” for a generic corporate communication department and its place within a company, as it is dependent on many factors such as corporate culture and corporate history. A successful communication department sits at the heart of corporate decisionmaking process; having strong and appreciated relationships with the business and have direct access to the CEO. Communication insights and intelligence are part of the Board decision-making process, not an afterthought. CEO access and trust is crucial, as well as the fact that the Director of Group Communications reports directly to the CEO. He does not want to micro-manage his organization but ensures coordination through standards, a global set of key messages whilst “bonding takes place through career and talent development, target setting and appraisal.” Following this ‘non-structural’ approach, the relatively small communication team at holding level of the company (some 40 FTEs) ensures alignment and consistency across the Communication Function - in total this company employs 480 communication professionals, on a total of some 155,000 employees.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Netherlands
Worldwide
Consumer Electronics
This company - active in the health and wellbeing industry – has made an interesting combination of the most modern features of communication structures in large, multinational organization. It has married centralisation to achieve alignment and consistency in approach and messaging, with enough room for local interpretation, whilst it has also ranked the
278 organization in such a way that they put their communication resources where the business has the most potential or where in terms of reputation there is a lot to defend or win. Following this ranking, they have landed a fascinating three-tier model of (1) fully staff markets, (2) flexible staff markets where they combine their own staff with support from agencies, whilst (3) the third layer comprises clustered markets where there are very limited company resources and they mainly count on agency support. In order to achieve the appropriate quality level of third party support, the company involved went out successfully with a global tender and contracted an alliance of agencies that provide a range of services, especially manning press desks around the world and providing crisis support in case this is required. Not a lot of worldwide operating companies of this size would be willing to take the steps this company has undertaken. According to their Vice President and Global Head of External Communications, the current structure is not always without complications, though internally this shared services design is currently serving as the model for other functions. The main driver for this risk-based approach is a combination of factors, namely demand for cost effectiveness and quality increase coupled with an internal driven for more impactful and aligned communication efforts.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Netherlands
Worldwide
Oil and Gas Energy
Originally, the Communications Function within this international oil and gas company was overlaid on existing structures in the businesses and the countries where the company operated, with considerable duplication and only dotted-line responsibilities to the Corporate Communications team. Other issues that were affecting the function were overly complex work processes leading to slow decision-making and diluted accountability.
279 The new structure that was introduced in 2008 can be described as a crossbusiness model that allowed the Communications Function to become an organisation with greater internal and external customer focus, alignment, consistency of messaging, better discipline, while the increased connectivity enabled the function to work faster around the world. The structure provided a single line of sight from global to local, with all Communications professionals directly or indirectly reporting up to the Executive VicePresident, Communications. The new design strengthens the ability to enhance and protect reputation at the two levels where it is built – at the global and at the local levels – and to establish a flatter structure that is more responsive to the commercial needs of the business. Decision-making and accountability are devolved to the Communications leader closest to the business leaders – at the global, regional or country level – operating within disciplined frameworks established at the Group level. Key features of the structure include: • At the global level there are centres of excellence in the corporate centre such as media relations, web communications and editorial services. They run their channels at the global level, foster best practice throughout the Communications Function and provide assistance, counsel and resources at the country level if needed. Furthermore, there are specific Communications teams in the global head offices of the businesses to serve their executive leadership teams and help shaping business decisions so that strategic issues and reputation aspects are addressed from the start and major projects are not delayed by social or environmental obstacles. • Underneath this, a geographic hub structure facilitates coordination and integration across the organisation. The world is divided in geographical hubs and some so-called stand-alone countries (given their size and/or strategic importance, these report straight up to the global level and not through the Hub level). Communication Hub managers interface with regional business organisations,
280 ensuring that their needs are met, and they are responsible for resource allocation and wider Communications staff development. • In country, a single Communications function services the needs of the businesses and enhances the company’s reputation in that country. A shared team (with as needed external agency consultants) provides the critical mass necessary for greater specialisation and professionalism. All Communications staff in country reports up to the Head of Communications of that nation. Overall, this company has selected an organisational structure following the concept of where reputation is built - at global and local level. Thinking outside in, it has departed the structure of the businesses in the company and has set-up its own design.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
US and Belgium
Worldwide
Industrial Chemicals and Technology
This organization is an international chemical and technology company that employs approximately 52,000 people worldwide. The company operates over 200 manufacturing sites in 37 countries across the globe. The interviewee [male] is based in the company’s European headquarters and holds the position of Regional Communications and Public Affairs Leader, which he has held for the past three years. Previously, he worked in the US in corporate communications and also in advertising agency area. The communications function, which has been through a recent reshuffle, numbers around 300 people across the company, with the European head office comprising some 35 people. Indeed, the interviewee pointed out that the company, as a whole, has been through a major period of change over the past decade as it adapted its business to the changing global market place. The company’s worldwide communication function is structured in terms of three related areas: a corporate element; a geographic element; and a business element, which reflect the main three types of communications that the company undertakes. While the specific emphasis and tactics might vary across the company’s different operating environments, nevertheless these three core elements that characterize the way that communication is organized tend to remain relatively constant. The interviewee explained that the
281 corporate communication element is responsible principally for media relations, internal communications, corporate reputation and corporate advertising; the geographic element handles local communications in each country where the company operates, and the business element supports business operations and comprises mainly marketing communications. The interviewee confirmed that senior management within the company recognize the value of communication although more so in the specialty areas of the business, rather than in the bulk chemicals business. Nevertheless, in terms of reporting relationships, the communication function is treated as a core function and is represented on the business leadership team. In terms of strategic decision-making in the communication fields, the lead is determined centrally for the company and then strategies at the regional and business unit level are adapted to fit in with the core strategy. The interviewee acknowledged that the nature of the chemical industry and its history of environment issues tends to make management extremely sensitive and alert to the potential of various risks that need to be managed: “If you’re in an industry like ours, with the kind of risks associated with the processes, you tend to spend a lot more time on community relations… .” However, it was also acknowledged that the level of internal support and appreciation of communication various quite considerably depending on not only on the type of business function but also the particular individual’s background and prejudices. Here the interviewee acknowledged the need to spend time ensuring that the key people in the business are ‘on board’ and appreciate the value of communications. The interviewee also pointed out that it is often the public affairs element of the communications function that is recognized as having the most ‘strategically’ import role. This, he suggested, is largely because of the highly regulated nature of many of the markets in which the company operates.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
UK and Netherlands
Worldwide
Consumer Foods and Household Goods
This organization, which is one of the largest consumer foods and household goods companies operating on a global scale, has dual headquarters in both the UK and Europe and its communication function is managed from London and the
282 Netherlands - but with offices around the world. The business is organized around three major geographical regions: Asia; Africa; Central and Eastern Europe; the Americas; and Western Europe – and from there divided into 25 multi-country organizations. The communication function maps onto and responds to the commercial needs of the business structure. The interviewee [male] holds the position as VP of External Global Affairs, and has been in his current position for just over 4 years, prior to which he held a number of senior posts within the public affairs industry and also held posts within the UK and US governments. The VP position is a senior management position within the company management structure and reports into the CEO and main management board. In the period 2006 – 2009, the company adopted its present day regional and multi-country-organization structures but with a significant downsizing of the headcount of staff employed in the communications functions, which fell from over 650 globally to around 165 [this number excludes those working in marketing communications]. This quite dramatic reduction in numbers was imposed on the function by senior management in a drive to reduce costs and improve efficiency. The communication function is structured on a decentralized basis with communication staff being attached to the various regional and multi-country offices based on the specific needs and complexity of the challenges facing each country / regional office. Here it was acknowledged that following the restructuring and downsizing exercise, the allocation of resource did not always reflect the workload involved and that some offices were “stretched extremely thinly” terms of coping with the range of work routinely involved. It was also acknowledged that in a number of cases, some tension exists between local communication priorities identified by each country-based management team and the issues and priorities determined by the headquarters communications function based in Europe. Such tensions may be exacerbated by the fact that local communications teams’ salaries are paid by their local country office and not by the corporate centre. Such tensions are manifest in the question of who determines the priority of communication issues and the strategy for the function. In principle, it is recognized that the corporate headquarters office determine the priority issues for the company as a whole that the communication function will focus its efforts on, but in practice, locally determined issues are also pushed onto the local communication
283 function’s agenda by the regional / country senior management. At the time when this interview was conducted, a further strategic review of the overall operation and structure of the company’s communications function was about to be instigated to address the sort of tensions identified.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
United Kingdom
Worldwide
Water, Electricity and Gas Utility
This organization is one of the UK's largest utility companies operating in the areas of water, wastewater, electricity and gas. In addition to the UK – based business, the company also has utility management operations in Australia, the Philippines, Poland, Estonia and Bulgaria. The interviewee [Female] holds the position of communication director having joined the company in 2006, after holding senior communication posts at other energy companies and also having worked in central government communication. The headquarters group communication function had until recently comprised around 22-24 people, divided across six sub–functions: investor relations [2 + consultants]; public affairs [4]; customer communication -split between business clients and end user customers - [6/7]; media relations corporate and local [4]; internal communications [2/3]; and Web based communications [2]. A functional head leads each of these six sub-functions. The head reports to the group corporate communication director. The exception is the case of internal communication, where the reporting line is to the HRM director. A further small team of communications people work in each of the countries where the company operates to handle local customer relations / communication. This structure essentially reflects the key stakeholder groups that the company needs to maintain effective relationships with, ranging from investors to domestic and industrial customers, employees, communities and regulators and government. The current communication function’s structure has been through a number of recent changes, which have resulted in a downsizing of the team. Perhaps the most notable impact of these changes has been the closure of the ‘education / schools liaison’ team’ which had comprised 6-7 people. The communications director is a member of the ‘Executive Leadership Team’, which is the
284 principal strategy and policy-making team within the organization. The interviewee pointed out that the importance of the communications function is widely recognized by senior management because of the high-politicized nature of the utility sector. Indeed, because of the potential impact on the company’s profitability of any regulatory change, the public affairs function is generally recognized as having a particularly significant role to play especially at times when the regulatory framework comes under review. It was also noted that much of the day-to-day communication with domestic and industrial customers had to be delivered through the engineers, and other customer-facing staff rather than from a centralized communication function and this customer interface has a crucial impact on the company’s reputation and its wider stakeholder relationships.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
United Kingdom
Worldwide
Utility/Energy
The communication function in this organization which is a large multinational utility company, based in the United Kingdom but also with interests in North America and Europe. The company is the largest supplier of gas to domestic customers in the UK, and one of the largest suppliers of electricity, operating under various trading names. The interviewee, [Female] holds the position of Group Corporate Affairs Director and has been in her current position for just over 5 years, prior to which she held a number of senior posts within the chemical industry and in consultancy sector. The current structure has been in place for about two years now and was reorganized at the time largely to improve efficiency and drive down overall costs. The group corporate affairs function employs some 38 people in the London headquarters divided across six sub –functions: public affairs and European policy [8]; corporate media relations [5]; media relations for the Gas business [6]; regional corporate affairs [5]; corporate reputation and internal communications [11]; and corporate social responsibility [3]. A functional director heads each of these six sub-functions, with these positions reporting to the Group Corporate Affairs Director. The interviewee explained that the public affairs and public policy function is generally recognized as the most important because of the highly regulated nature of the gas and energy industry which makes it “issues ridden.” In fact, the company has a separate large ‘regulatory group’ that is responsible
285 for the on-going monitory and analysis of regulatory / legislative change that might affect the company. “There is now a Cabinet Minister for Energy, a Department of Energy and a Department of the Environment all concerned with energy-related issues within the UK Government.” The interviewee termed this “an enormous ‘waterfront’ of government to deal with, in addition to NGOs, pressure groups, consumer groups.” When asked about the strengths and weaknesses of the organizational structure, the interviewee explained that although the functional structure might not suit other companies “the structure is the ‘right’ structure for the business as it is.” As Group Corporate Affairs Director, the interviewee sits on the executive board of the company and reports directly to the board. She also oversees the regional affairs team that has a presence in Scotland and Wales. While it was acknowledged that the company does not have the global presence of some major corporations, nevertheless the company does have a North American business and the London office liaises regularly with a North American communications team. The people working in the corporate affairs function are a mix of externally recruited professionals and people who have been recruited internally from other parts of the company to join the function. Here it was stressed that the highly complex nature of the energy business requires considerable knowledge and expertise about how the energy market operates.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
United Kingdom
Worldwide
Wines, Spirits and Beer Producer
The communication function in this organization (which is one of the world’s largest spirits and wines companies) has evolved steadily to reflect its global presence. The interviewee [Male], who holds the position as Group Corporate Relations Director, has overseen several reorganizations of the communication function. These changes reflected changes in the structure of the business as a whole. The current structure has been in place for about two years now and was reorganized at the time largely to improve efficiency and drive down overall costs. The Corporate Relations Director role is recognized as a main board role and as such the interviewee is a member of the company’s senior management team [dominant coalition]. The company operates in over 180 countries globally and divides the world into four geographic market regions:
286 North America; Europe; International, which includes Latin America & Caribbean and Africa; and Asia-Pacific. The global communications function employees some 220 people divided across 5 sub–disciplines: corporate communications including employee communication; brand communications; corporate social responsibility; public policy [including alcohol policy]; and corporate relations in Scotland for Scottish whiskey. These sub-functions cover all the key communication areas: media relations; corporate communications; brand public relations; employee communications; public affairs and public policy; issue management and; corporate social responsibility. This functional structure is then replicated across each of the four geographical operating regions, each of which is headed by a regional corporate relations director. All of the functional disciplines and regional communication functions report directly to the Group Corporate Relations Director based in London. Operationally, the communication functions are managed through a series of ‘core communications hubs’ that are located to support the various business units. There are 19 communication hubs in total covering the four geographical operating regions. Each hub might comprise around 4-5 people responsible for brand communications, corporate social responsibility, employee communications, etc. The number of hubs varies across the regions so that in Europe there are hubs in UK, Ireland, continental Europe and Iberia. In Latin America there are 4-5 hubs. The size of the communication team varies by region and by country. The largest teams are in China [12 people], Great Britain [10 people] and Ireland [10 people]. Operationally, the communication functions also work in partnership with other functions within the business. Thus employee communications works closely with HRM, brand communications with the marketing function and digital communications with the digital marketing function. There is collaborative approach between functions. In addition to this regionally based communication structure, the company maintains a number of global communication functions that support and span across the whole of the company’s estate. So there is a Global Head of Corporate Social Responsibility with 3-4 staff, a Global Head of Brand PR with 6 staff, a Global Head of Public Policy again with 5 staff, and a Global Director of Media. The total communication budget is around £100 million. The global strategy for the company is determined at the centre and is driven by the prevailing mission and vision for the company’s positioning in 2011.
287 All communication goals and targets are derived from and are designed to support this overall business strategy. There is sometimes a tension between global and regional / local priorities but there is generally a strong ‘buy-in’ to the overall mission and vision and the centralized control of communication helps resolve any potential conflicts and ensures consistency within the central communications strategy. Commenting on the company’s communications structure’s effectiveness, the interviewee argued that its strength lies in its clarity and alignment with the business and felt that “no other form of structure would be entirely fit for the purpose.” When asked about best practices in corporate communications / public affairs, the interviewee suggested that best practice would be characterized by work that essentially “advanced the reputation of the company’s products and people. It is critical that the communications is aligned with the business objectives and contributes to their achievement.”
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
United States
Worldwide
Healthcare Researcher/Manufacturer
The company is a well-known, global manufacturer of healthcare products. Operating in 57 companies, this conglomerate has three distinct business lines – and in the three lines 250 separate member companies that together employ 120,000 workers. The incumbent, the Corporate Vice-President, has led the Public Affairs and Corporate Communication (PA&CC) department for four years. Over the last four years, the department has lost about 20% of its FTE count. Company downsizing has driven this reduction in communication FTEs. The organization is structured around one corporate group and three large business lines. Each business line includes multiple numbers of separate businesses. PA&CC matches this structure. While the communication function parallels the organizational structure, as do other central functions such as the HR and Finance groups, it is only with the Communication Function that the communication units in the business lines report functionally to the Corporate Vice-President. In HR and Finance, their functional groups in the business lines report directly to corporate.
288 Reporting directly to the Corporate Vice President is a corporate group (with 4 Direct reports {VP Media Relations; VP Organizational Communications; VP Public Affairs & Corporate Citizenship; and VP Strategic Communications} and 30 FTEs). Investor Relations communication and Marketing communication report to each of the three business lines, not to the Corporate Vice-President of PA&CC nor to the heads of Finance or Marketing. The communication vice presidents of each business line (three business line communication departments with a total of 150 FTEs) Report functionally. The Corporate Vice President chairs the Communication Council, a group that includes the three business line communication heads plus the four corporate VPs in PA&CC. Council deals with succession planning, communication policies, talent development, training, an issues escalation process and the assignment of responsibilities for the total communication function across the organization. The Corporate VP (CVP) reports to the CEO; with his functional reports reporting directly to their business line head. The CVP does not sit on Executive Committee but does reports to it for employee pulse surveys and stakeholder relations and reputation tracking. The CVP does sits on Corporate Management Committee with other corporate heads. The organization has international and regional operations and communication is handled as part of each business line communication group. Corporate is not involved. International or regional strategy is set within each business line communication group. But, if project/issue “escalates” beyond the business line, PA&CC will get involved then. Recent organizational downsizing has driven the current communication structure. Three VP slots in PA&CC were eliminated. Some activities were amalgamated. Social media functions were introduced. With downsizing, there has been little hiring and the use of more consultants. The interviewee saw the strengths and weaknesses of this structure as: Strengths:
The proximity of communication to each business; they are co-located, with an allegiance to and knowledge of that business;
The escalation of issues responsibility is fast and flexible;
The Corporate and the 3 business line VPs in same building; and
The use of account executives in each business line communication department.
289 Weaknesses:
The rigid allocation of employees; employees have peaks and valleys in workload but the communication executives can’t move headcount and salary from one business to another or to corporate since the business line leader pays for the communication resources allocated to her or his business;
The challenges around succession planning for the 180 FTEs as a whole;
The different performance measures per group, with each communication group having different performance assessment criteria;
The communication resources may not be deployed in smaller markets or emerging markets if the business group doesn’t deploy there or if one business group may deploy and another may not; and
The communication department is viewed as corporate overhead.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Private
Canada
North America
Banking Services
This company is one of Canada’s major financial institutions, with operations in the United States (10th largest bank) and around the world. It has 82,000 employees and 19,000 customers worldwide. The Senior Vice President (SVP) of Corporate and Public Affairs has been in this department for 10 years, with the last three years in top VP job. She inherited a major re-organization done by her predecessor in 2005 and did a re-alignment in 2007 by adding an extra team to support the organization’s acquisition of new businesses in the United States. As SVP, she has 6 direct reports at the VP level. Five of these VPs have account teams supporting a business line. These are full service teams. Prior to reorganization in 2005, units were organized by either communication function or by stakeholder, such as internal communication, external communication and media relations. The 2005 reorganization established the account team as the main building block. At that time, business line heads wanted one-stop shopping for all their communication needs rather than having to go to different people for internal and external communication services. They wanted one senior manager assigned to them. The VPs report directly to the SVP and are matrixed, reporting also to the business line head. These VPs supporting business lines sit at the business line management table. In total, the department has approximately 129 FTEs. The SVP reports to the Group
290 Head of HR and Corporate Communications & Public Affairs, who in turn reports to the CEO. This has always been the case. There are international teams, as part of the account teams. Most of the strategizing is done centrally. But, it includes the business line head for the region, to whom the communication VP has a dotted line relationship. The Corporate and Public Affairs structure parallels the corporate organizational structure, which is organized to support business lines. The interviewee detailed the strengths and weaknesses of the group as follows: Strengths:
The knowledge of each business and the understanding of what drives each business;
The role of communication is clear: to support the drivers of the business;
The centralization has allowed easy movement between teams as needs arise;
All VPs are VPs Corporate Communications with mostly genetic work descriptions with a little customization added; and
Many of the staff have taken financial training to better understand their business line.
Weaknesses:
Other than where the business lines operate, there is no regional representation across North America outside of HQ, meaning they can’t pitch stories very well to regional media. Other than the strengths cited above, the greatest influence on the
communication department has been the organizational culture, in that communication is valued and the CEO “gets it” and leads by example. This structure has allowed support to the business line and at the same time support corporately. “We have teams that support the business lines but they report centrally to her. This means we are seen as a valued business partner, and being at the table allows us to help from the beginning of an idea/project cycle.” The structure is much more centralized than some other financial institutions, she believes. The second influence is that the SVP can bring in staff when there is a need and not get pushback. Most work is done in-house, including all planning. All channels are maintained in-house. Media Relations is performed in-house. Some smaller projects are contracted to small agencies - for writing, project management, event planning and collateral development. The SVP’s budget includes overhead (heat; light; rent), salaries and benefits for all staff, and staff
291 T&D and travel, etc. Business lines pick up the cost of communication operations (consultants; printing; etc.) but the SVP pays staff salary costs.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Non-Profit
United States
Worldwide
Services to Military Personnel
This non-profit is based in the United States but its operations stretch around the globe. With only 500 staff, its work is supplemented by extensive volunteer effort. The department of Marketing and Communication is new. The title represents a marketing push by the new President. Called marketing but it is more a marketing communication or public awareness push. The current Marketing and Communication structure supports other departments. The department of Marketing and Communications is led by an SVP. Reporting to SVP is the VP of Communications and the VP of Publications. The SVP reports to the President, one of 9 direct reports. The VP of Communications has media relations, social media, web site, marketing communications, annual report, while the VP of Publications has responsibility for content and publication of a news magazine, newsletters and an on-line blog. Communications has nine FTEs; Publications has four. All communication including that from the service centres around the world is centralized in this group. The Marketing and Communication Department will supply services to these centres on demand, including publications, videographers to cover events and media training. Strategy is set centrally. The Communication Section of the Marketing and Communication Department has Communication Specialists assigned as AEs to Operations, Entertainment, HR and Development Departments. These specialists work with staff in these other departments at HQs as well as with staff in centres around the world. They have junior AEs assisting them. Strengths and weaknesses follow, as determined by the interviewee: Strengths:
They set up the Account Executive system to be close to the client, to find opportunities by pitching ideas to clients on how they could be helped – since most of the organization is organized in silos. The AE structure overcomes a lack of integrated information, since there is no corporate strategic plan or
292 corporate scorecard for the organization as yet. Communications does the integration itself; and
The use of agencies, since agencies bring in expertise and capabilities a small team could never have in house.
Weaknesses:
Various field operational groups work in silos and report directly to a HQ unit. Communications does not work directly with field staff. No communications people in field, though regional VPs want their own communications people. If there were regionally based communications people, it still would have to be worked out to whom they would report. Much of the corporate reputation / brand implementation work falls to an ad
agency on retainer: 2 FTEs full time on brand management collateral and PSAs; 2 FTEs ½ time on pitching and tracking PSA distribution and usage. As well, a PR agency supports the Development Department with 3 full time FTEs. And, another firm supplies 3 FTEs full time on web sire development. Finally, 1/5 FTEs from another firm do media measurement. Therefore, there are thirteen FTEs in-house and another ten full time with agencies.
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Non-profit Corporation
Canada
Municipal
Utility
This municipal utility, a non-profit public corporation, of some 2000 FTEs went through changes in 2005. Like many other similar utilities across North America, it entered in to the environmental conservation business. It created a separate business line for energy conservation. This business line was allocated to the Corporate Communication function and in doing so doubled the department’s number of FTEs from 10 to 22 and the department’s budget from $2M to $12M over the recent five year period. This increase was both to administer the program and to market the program. All public education programs were now tied to the number of kilowatts per hour saved. The CCO has been with the utility for over two decades and ten years ago became the Vice-President, Communications and Public Affairs, reporting to the CEO. Besides this role, the CCO is assigned special responsibilities by the CEO for special projects, which become part of a performance contract with the CEO. The CCO is supported by three
293 directors: a Director of Marketing, Communications and Public Affairs; a Director of Community Relations and Special Events; and a Director of Government and Stakeholder Relations. The first director has responsibility for: the new energy conservation programs and their creation, implementation and marketing; media relations; employee communication (mainly content for closed circuit TV in work centres); and website and digital communications content. This unit is really two distinct groups: energy conservation programs; and all other communication activities. This is the largest of the three units with 13 FTEs, 3 in the first group and 10 in the second. The second director is responsible for: customer relations and care programs; street level customer communication programs in support of changes in infrastructure that affect customer services and community transportation; and emergency situations. This unit has 7 FTEs and is divided in to three geographically based teams of 2 FTEs each. The third unit is being rebuilt and has only 1 FTE at present. Even being a relatively small department, systems are needed to ensure information flow across the three units. At times, there are difficulties with workflow, particularly around media relations for emergencies and infrastructure changes that cause community transportation difficulties. The CCO has used consultants quite liberally to ensure that the department is staffed “lightly.” Contracting out of work takes up about 20% of the operating budget. Contractors are employed for writing, public opinion research, communication and marketing communication planning. Strengths of communication department structure, as described by the interviewee, are:
The length of service of and thus corporate knowledge retained by the CCO; and
The organization of units by stakeholders: employees; media; customers; citizens/taxpayers; and government levels. Weaknesses of communication department structure:
The communication support services that support all three units are placed in one of the three units and not in its own a separate unit; and
The distribution and supervision of employees is not even across all directors.
294
SECTOR
HQs LOCATION
SCOPE
INDUSTRY
Non-Profit
Canada
Canada/Worldwide
Emergency Relief
This not-for-profit operates across Canada and contributes through the international body to global emergency and relief efforts. It has a relatively small national headquarters staff (100 FTEs), with most of the FTEs in regional and local offices (3000 FTEs plus 3000 part time staff and thousands of volunteers) across the country. The CCO of Public Affairs and Government Relations (14 FTEs) reports to the CEO and has responsibility for separate units for Government Relations (1 FTE plus outsourcing functions to consultants), Public Affairs (corporate communications) (6 FTEs for program communications, media relations and employee communication), Creative Communication Services (1 FTE with emphasis on Branding services), Policy (3 FTEs) and Fundraising Development with Corporations (2 FTEs). The CCO spends 95% of her time overseeing Public Affairs and Creative Communication Services activities. A Manager who in turn reports to the CCO leads each unit, with the exception of Creative Communication Services. Previously, the employees in Public Affairs reported to the heads of individual program departments. The new CCO centralized these FTEs in to a single unit and though they have specialized program clients they also work together on common issues and projects. Each region has communication FTEs. These staff members perform the implementation of communication programs that are developed at headquarters. They do not report directly or functionally to the CCO. There are 22 communication FTEs across the five regions. Approximately 30% of the CCO’s budget is spent on contracting out work to consultants, over and above the allocation for government relations outsourcing. The majority of this work is for creative services and public affairs: writing; graphic arts; publishing; events; etc. The incumbent’s predecessor had responsibility only for Public Affairs. Therefore, the job description was enlarged for the incumbent, other responsibilities added and the position’s salary increased. The CEO made the choice of job description and of department organizational model. The CEO realigned and collapsed a number of headquarters units, in a move to downsize national headquarters and increase the
295 resources in the regions. According to the interviewee, the strengths of the department structure are:
The CCO reports to the CEO and is a member of the management committee, as do the regional heads of communication, thus communication authorities and accountabilities have a forum for resolution; and Having a local communication presence or boots on the ground allows for better media, community and client relationships and better issues management. Weaknesses of the department structure: Policy and Corporate Fundraising Development departments have little in common with Public Affairs; Regional communication employees have no formal relationship with the CCO; and There is at times little consistency in how communication programs, particularly branding programs, devised at headquarters, are implemented across the regions.
296
D. Qualitative Research: CCO Interview Questionnaire INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATORS RESEARCH FOUNDATION FUNDED STUDY ON
THE STRUCTURE OF COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENTS
The following are the key research questions we are trying to answer through this research: 1. How are communication departments structured, and what structures appear to be the most effective? 2. What factors (such as corporate history, CEO bias, type of business/industry, stability versus amount of change in the organization, influence of the corporate structure or perhaps HR or Marketing organizational structures, etc.) appear to have the greatest influence on the communication department structure, and which structures/models seem to work most effectively in light of these factors? 3. What are the major trends relating to communication department structure, functions, budget, staffing and competencies? 4. What are the attributes and best practices associated with high-performing communication departments? To address the above research questions, we are asking interviewees in five continents the following questions through a personal interview. All responses will be kept anonymous when results are reported, unless the interviewee expressly grants permission: How is the overall PR/Communications function organized in your organization? Which sub-functions report to you? Directly? Functionally? How many positions are there within each sub-function? To whom do you report? Where does that person rank within the organizational hierarchy? 5. Do you sit on the highest-level management committee? 6. Does your organization have geographically/regionally based communication functions? 7. Who sets the strategy for the “international” (regional or country based groups) communications groups in your organization? Is the strategizing done centrally or locally? If locally, who are involved? If there is a mix, how is that mix done? 1. 2. 3. 4.
8. How does the org structure for communications relate to the org structure for the organization itself? 9. What was the rationale for your current organizational structure? 10. What strengths and weaknesses have you seen in this structure?
297
11. What factors do you think have the greatest influence on the communication function and structure in your organization? 12. What is the importance of organizational structure to your department's success vis-à-vis the importance of good corporate strategy and planning, the resources or capacity you have at your disposal or the competencies of your staff? 13. From your knowledge of PR/Communication departments in other organizations, what structures appear to be the most effective? What are the major trends relating to communication department structure, functions, budget, staffing and competencies? 14. In what way does the structure of the department help to make the PR/C dept a high performing department? 15. How much of the communication work do you do in-house and how much of it do you outsource, if at all? Final request: We would very much like to have copies of any organizational charts of your organization. If one does not exist, could you please create a generic chart? Ideally, the first chart would describe how your organization as a whole is structured at the corporate level in order to understand how your organization organizes businesses, staff functions and regions. The second chart would describe how the PR/Communication function/department is structured, including all communication functions whether they are part of a single department under your authority or whether there are a number of separate functions that report independently. Further charts, if available, would describe how Human Resources and Marketing are structured, particularly in comparison to how PR/Communications is organized.
298 E. Quantitative Research: CCO On-Line Survey Questionnaire
International Association of Business Communicators Research Foundation Global Survey on the Structure of Communication Departments
THE
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER (CCO): EVP OR SVP OR VP OR DIRECTOR OR HEAD OF THE PRIMARY COMMUNICATIONS/PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT
Please Note: This questionnaire consists of: a) Yes/No questions; b) Questions that ask you to choose one of several options; c) Questions where you are asked to write-in a brief response; and d) Questions where you will be required to choose one option on a 5-point scale denoting your agreement about a statement as follows: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree
We thank you for responding to all questions. 1. My organization is a 1. For-profit corporation 2. Not-for-profit organization 2. My organization operates in _________ countries 3. My organization operates primarily in the following sector (for example private sector: financial services; manufacturing; utilities; for example not-for-profit sector: charity; education; NGO foreign aid) __________________________________________ 4. My responsibilities include communication at the: 1. International/Global Level
299 2. Continental Level (for example North America or Europe) 3. National Level 4. Regional/Local Level 5. The headquarters for our organization’s communication department is in: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Africa Asia Europe North America South America
The total number of employees in my organization is 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Below 1000 1001 – 5000 5001 – 25,000 25,001 – 100,000 Above 100,000
7. As CCO, I report to: 1. Chairman of the Board (top member of Board of Directors) 2. CEO/President/Executive Director (top executive in the organization) 3. Chief Marketing Officer 4. Chief Financial Officer 5. Chief Human Resources Officer 6. Chief Legal Officer 7. Chief Strategic Planning Officer 8. Chief Fundraising Officer 9. Head of an Operating Unit 10. Other, please list the title: __________________________________ 8. I sit on the highest level executive or management committee: Yes
No
9. My inputs are valued and are taken into account when organizational decisions are made: 1
2
3
4
5
10. As a CCO for my organization, I have responsibility for the following communication functions (please tick all that apply):
300
1. External Corporate Communication/Public Relations/Reputation 2. Internal, Employee Communication 3. Marketing/Advertising/Sales/Customer Relations Communication 4. Investor Relations 5. Government Relations/Public Affairs 6. Media Relations 7. Web-based Communication (online and social media public relations) 8. Community Relations 9. Corporate Social Responsibility/Philanthropy 10. Issues/Crisis Management 11. Research, Planning and/or Measurement 12. Other (Please list the departments not covered above) 11. In my organization the communication function is integrated as one single department, under me: Yes No 12. If the answer to #11 is “No”, which of the following are separate functions or departments that report elsewhere: 1. External Corporate Communication/Public Relations/Reputation 2. Internal, Employee Communication 3. Marketing/Advertising/Sales/Customer Relations Communication 4. Investor Relations 5. Government Relations/Public Affairs 6. Media Relations 7. Web-based Communication (online and social media public relations) 8. Community Relations 9. Corporate Social Responsibility/Philanthropy 10. Issues/Crisis Management 11. Research, Planning and/or Measurement 12. Fundraising/Donor Communication 13. Member Communication 14. Other (Please list the functions or department not covered above) 13. If the response to Q #11 is “No”, do the heads of these separate functions report to you functionally (with you providing overall guidance, planning, training, etc.)? Yes
No
14. The number of employees in communication functions in my organization is: 1. 2. 3. 4.
0 – 10 11 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 100
301 5. 101 and above 15. The all-in budget (including salary/benefits and operational/contracting budgets and including permanent and one-off funding) for my communication department for the current fiscal year is: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Less than $1M US Between $1M and $3M US Between $3M and $5M US Between $5M and $10M US Between $10M and $25M US Between $25M and $50M US Over $50M US
16. In my organization the following communication functions are not performed in-house, but are outsourced in their entirety to a consulting firm (This is not about contracting out some activities or some products but about paying a consulting firm to manage a complete function such as internal communication or public affairs.) 1. External Corporate Communication/Public Relations/Reputation 2. Internal, Employee Communication 3. Marketing/Advertising/Sales/Customer Relations Communication 4. Investor Relations 5. Government Relations/Public Affairs 6. Media Relations 7. Web-based Communication (online and social media public relations) 8. Community Relations 9. Corporate Social Responsibility/Philanthropy 10. Issues/Crisis Management 11. Research, Planning and/or Measurement 12. Fundraising/Donor Communication 13. Member Communication 14. Other (Please list the functions or departments not covered above) 17. Because my organization is international/global, the geographically dispersed communication functions on other continents and in other countries report directly to me at headquarters. Yes
No
18. If the response to Q #18 is “No”, to whom do they report?
302 1. 2. 3. 4.
Directly to another communication function at HQs Directly to an operations head at HQs Directly to a regionally-based operations head To both a regional operating head and to the communication function at HQs
19. If the response to Q #18 is “No” and they report somewhere else directly, do they still report to you functionally (with you providing for example overall guidance, integrated planning, group training, etc.)? Yes
No
20. Because my organization is international/global, the regional strategies for communication are: 1. Centralized at headquarters with all regions following the same exact strategy, 2. Centralized at the headquarters with regional communication specialists “localizing” these global strategies to suit local socio-political and cultural conditions or 3. Designed separately in each region to meet different regional needs without an overarching global strategy 21. In my communication department for which I have responsibility, there are: 1. Two levels of hierarchy (myself and those who directly report to me) 2. Three levels of hierarchy (myself, my managers, and those who report to my managers) 3. Four levels of hierarchy (myself, my managers, supervisors under my managers, and those who report directly to those supervisors) 4. Five Levels of hierarchy (myself, senior managers such as VP’s under me, their managers, their managers’ supervisors and those who report directly to the supervisors) 5. More than five levels of hierarchy
22. Not counting administrative assistance, as CCO, please indicate how many communication managers/staff report to you:
Reminder: 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree 23. In my communication department, I have a designated second-in-command who acts for me when I’m away with the same authority:
303 1
2
3
4
5
24. In my organization, the structure of the communication department(s) was determined based on a deliberate (conscious) process and discussion: 1
2
3
4
5
25. In my organization, the structure of the communication department(s) has evolved over the years into its current form without much strategic deliberation: 1
2
3
4
5
26. In my organization, the structure of the communication department(s) is reviewed periodically and revised to suit prevailing demands 1
2
3
4
5
27. The last major restructuring or reorganization of my organization’s communication function(s) or department(s) was held: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Less than a year ago Between one and three years ago Between three and five years ago More than five years ago
28. The following factor/factors prompted the last major restructuring/reorganization: (Choose one or more that are relevant) 1. A new CEO 2. A new CCO/Head of Communication 3. Major growth in the organization 4. Merger and/or acquisition and integration of second communication department 5. Major downsizing in the organization 6. Internal client demand for better services 7. Organizational movement to outsourcing 8. Other 29. In my organization, the following factors have had the greatest influence on the communication department(s)’ current organizational structure:
304 (Choose one or more that are relevant) 1. Organizational Leadership choice (Chairman/Board/CEO and/or Management Committee decision) 2. Reflection of the Corporate organizational structure and its number of departments 3. Reflection on the organization of other staff functions such as how Marketing, HR or Finance are designed 4. External factors: Socio-economic conditions; Market conditions; Stakeholder activism 5. Geographical reach of the organization 6. Size and/or growth of the organization 7. Organization design thinking by the CCO 30. I would describe the corporate organizational structure of my organization as: 1. Centralized/hierarchical/vertical 2. Decentralized/less hierarchical/horizontal 3. Matrixed (vertical functional departments with horizontal product or market divisions and duel reporting) 4. Hollow/virtual (functions outsourced, more team based, networked with partners) 31. In my communication department, we organize and group our staff into units primarily by: (Choose one or more that are relevant) 1. Internal client (supplying account executives/teams to internal clients) 2. Stakeholders (groups to serve employees; customers; investors; donors; media; etc.) 3. Communication process (groups for research; planning; project management; production; etc.) 4. Communication activities/services (specialist groups doing media pitching; speech writing; event planning; etc.) 5. Geography/region (full service team by region) 6. Technology (groups specializing in print; on-line; face to face; etc.)
32. In my organization, the current structure of my department facilitates my department to support the organization’s objectives and strategies 1
2
3
4
5
33. In my organization, the current structure of my department impedes the ability of my department to support the organization’s objectives and strategies
305 1
2
3
4
5
34. The following are some of the strengths of the current structure of the communication department in my organization: 35. The following are some of the weaknesses of the current structure of the communication department in my organization:
36. As CCO of a communication department, I feel the following factors contribute to making our structure work: (Choose one or more that are relevant) 1. My and my senior executives leadership competencies 2. My and my managers managerial competencies 3. Having specialists on staff in various important roles 4. Having generalists on staff who can fill in many roles 5. The length of the chain of command (the number of levels of hierarchy) 6. The span of control given each manager (number of direct reports) 7. The number of support staff 8. The suite of policies, procedures, and standardized processes we have put in place 9. Making the department a fun place to work (work/life balance; team spirit; etc.) 10. Senior executive support 11. More than one of the above (write in the corresponding numbers from the above list) 37. Based on my knowledge of PR/Communication departments in other organizations, the following are some current trends related to the structure of the communication departments and the organizing of staff into units: 38. Based on my experience as a communication professional, I believe the following key success factors help make the PR/Communication department a high performing one:
306 F. Quantitative On-Line Survey: Frequencies (accompanying document)
G. Quantitative On-Line Survey: Cross Tabulations (accompanying document)
