University of Chester BELL Faculty Annual Staff Research Conference Mapping Communication Department Structure, An International Study

Transcription

1 BUSINESS SCHOOL University of Chester BELL Faculty Annual Staff Research Conference 2015 Communication / Public relations Strategy Mapping Communication Department Structure, An International Study Drafting Strategy Danny Moss, Fraser Prof Likely, Danny Krishnamurthy Moss Sriramesh, Peter Stokes, Maria Aparecida Ferrari & Bert Regeer (University of Chester, UK; Likely Communication Strategies, Canada; Purdue University, USA; University of Chester, UK; University of Såo Paulo, Brazil; Shell International BV, The Netherlands) 1

2 BUSINESS SCHOOL The International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Research Foundation funded an international study of communication department structure The main purpose of this international research study was identified as; This 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. 2

3 BUSINESS SCHOOL Our three related 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. 3

4 The study began with a detailed review of both the communication and public relations literature as well as the management and organizational studies literatures examining the theme of organization and department structures and the key factors influencing structure and structural choice decisions. 4

5 The significant themes identified from the literature review as particularly relevant to the development of this study s research focus and questions Included: 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; 5

6 The significant themes identified from the literature review as particularly relevant to the development of this study s research focus and questions Included: 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; 6

7 The significant themes identified from the literature review as particularly relevant to the development of this study s research focus and questions Included: The international / global scope of an organization s operations are likely to have a significant influence on structural choice decisions and functional structures; Organizational and societal culture likely to play a significant role in shaping functional structures; Key decision-makers / CCOs perceptions and preferences generally play a key part in determining structural options. 7

8 Research Questions: Drawing on the analysis of the literature we developed 7 key 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? 8

9 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? 9

10 Methodology: Two step sequential approach enabling triangulation of both data collection and analysis methods Stage 1: In-depth interviews with CCOs from 26 organisations drawn from all 5 continents across the world Stage 2: Snowball Survey of CCOs using an internet based survey questionnaire [in English and Portuguese/Spanish] targeted at CCOs through IABC membership, National Professional Bodies and other practitioner databases The survey yielded 278 usable responses [15responses from government agencies were excluded] 10

11 The interview protocol used by all the researchers comprised 15 primary questions. The resulting data was analysed thematically [Miles and Huberman, 1994] to identify any patterns emerging from the collective data set (Eisenhardt, 1989). A survey questionnaire comprising 39 questions was constructed drawing on both the literature review and the findings from the qualitative stage of the research. The questionnaire was designed to provide a broader range of data about communication department structures that would enable further elaboration and generalization of the findings. 11

12 The survey was hosted on the university web server of one of the members of the research team. The data were analyzed using the latest version of SPSS - Predictive Analytics Software Statistics (PASW). The analysis sought to identify key trends and patterns within the data responses, as well as key relationships between variables that might help explain why particular structural configurations were favoured over others. 12

13 Findings: Sample profiles Table 1: The total number of employees in sample organizations Number of employees Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Below , , , Above 100, Total Missing System Total

14 RQ1 Are There Specific Structures / Models For Communication Departments? No evidence of any dominant communications department structural model. Because of the small size of most communications departments [60% employing fewer than 10 people and only 15% employing 50+ people] it was unlikely that a full range of hierarchical structural models would be found. The number of vertical strata in communication departments did increase steadily from 3 for depts of 25 to 4-6 for depts of 50. In short, horizontal structure has more direct meaning to a CCO in a small department, but as departments grow in size both the horizontal and vertical structure arrangements come into play. 14

15 RQ 2: Is There A Relationship Between Communication Department Structure And Organisational Structure? Relatively little conclusive evidence found of a direct causal relationship between the overall organisational structure (Simple Form; U Form; M Form; Matrix Form; or Virtual Form) and that of the communication department per se. Here again, CCO preferences and size of department appeared the strongest influences on department al structure. 15

16 RQ 3: What Are The Most Critical Factors Determining Communication Department Structure? Communication department structure largely determined by CCOs on appointment or during tenure. Key considerations include: Leadership competencies and management capabilities Working environment and culture Structural issues such as length of chain of command, and the span of control of communication managers. Factors driving decisions to change functional structures: Reaction to external environmental factors Internal organisational transformation Need to align organization and communications structures Need to improve staff capabilities and competencies 16

17 RQ 4: Is There A Link Between The Structure Of The Communication Department And Organisational Efficacy? The evidence suggests a somewhat ambiguous answer to whether a link can be identified between communication department structure and overall organisational efficacy. CCOs have been increasingly successful in gaining access to and representation on the senior management team in a broad cross section of organizations, but little 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 its contribution to organizational success. 17

18 RQ 5: Does The Structure Of Communication Departments Remain Constant Across Different Geographic Regions? The structure of communication departments appeared to vary across the international communications landscape. Some organisations adopted or imposed a relatively consistent structure on their communication departments, whereas others allowed more regional autonomy to locally based CCOs to determine the local communication structures. 18

19 RQ 6: If There Are Global Differences In Communication Department Structures, What Are They? 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. 19

20 RQ 7: Is It Possible For There To Be A Universally Effective Communication Department Structure? Evidence gathered 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. As we have noted previously, most communication department structures are hybrid structures. 20

21 Conclusions: C1: There appears to be considerable instability or uncertainty about organisational/communication department structures - with, in most cases, a sense of on-going transition and regular change in structure both at the organisational and communication department levels. It is important not to overstate the case for change, nor to suggest that organisational settings and communication departments lived experiences are chaotic and disorganized. However, our findings do seem to underscore a need for CCOs to demonstrate agility, adaptability and flexibility in relation to evolving markets, environments, restructuring their departments whenever appropriate. 21

22 Conclusions: C2: While a range of external and internal factors may play a part in shaping thinking about the structural configuration of 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 in terms of departmental structure. While smaller sized communication departments [less than 25] might appear to lessen the importance of structural design, our evidence suggests structure retains a recurring concern even in small sized departments albeit with a greater emphasis on horizontal structural configuration rather than emphasising vertical relationships. 22

23 Conclusions: C3: Given the absence of any one definitive communications department structure that might contribute to organisational effectiveness, CCOs needs to focus on the effective use of the human capital on the recruitment and retention of the most talented practitioners to work within the chosen hybrid communications department structure. With no one definitive structural model emerging, the key to effective management of communications departments appears to lie in combining the recruitment and retention of the best people for the communication function and putting them in the right positions in the adopted structure. 23