1

Communication / Public relations Strategy

Drafting Strategy

Prof Danny Moss

BUSINESS SCHOOL

22nd International Public Relations Research Symposium BLEDCOM 2015 - July 3 - 4, 2015

Awakening a Sleeping Issue: Communication Department Structure,

An International Study

Danny Moss, Fraser Likely, Krishnamurthy 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)

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.

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.

4

Business School

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.

5

Business School

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;

6

Business School

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;

7

Business School

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.

8

Business School

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?

9

Business School

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?

10

Business School

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]

11

Business School

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.

12

Business School

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.

13

Business School

Findings: Sample profiles

Table1:Thetotalnumberofemployeesinsampleorganizations

Numberofemployees Frequency Percent ValidPercent CumulativePercent

Below1000 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

Above100,000 24 8.6 8.8 100.0

Total 274 98.6 100.0

Missing System 4 1.4

Total 278 100.0

14

Business School

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.

15

Business School

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.

16

Business School

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

17

Business School

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.

18

Business School

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.

19

Business School

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.

20

Business School

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.

21

Business School

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.

22

Business School

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.

23

Business School

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.