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.