Tag: corporate communications

Four factors lead to communication team performance (and four benefits of it)

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

When I ask students in my PR Cases and Management class what it means that public relations is a “management function,” I usually get some form of the answer that public relations needs to be managed to be effective.

Lesson one in that class is that PR is a management function because it is a vital part of managing the entire organization, not just the communication function. Organizations that have healthy and mutual relationships with all stakeholders are more successful in every respect. The fundamental role of public relations is building and maintaining those relationships that are what scholars call “two-way symmetrical.” 

I also stress this in my graduate class in communications management. Managing communication is about making an entire enterprise successful, and the top communications person should have a “seat at the table” making decisions, not merely communicating them. 

My research is centered on this concept as well, with my presentations, papers and book chapters related in various ways to the various influences on the quality of public relations content. My most recent work is “Testing a Model of Drivers and Outcomes for Corporate Communications Team Performance” published this month in Public Relations Journal. The project was done in conjunction with my co-author Mark Bain, a veteran PR professional with experience in global PR in corporate and agency settings who now runs his own consultancy called upper90. We worked together with the Institute for Public Relations (IPR) to survey chief communications officers (CCOs) and their teams. You can read a blog post summary on the IPR website, and you can access the full paper in PR Journal.

The origin of the research is a conversation Mark Bain and I had about what makes communication teams effective, or what makes them perform well? This resulted in a previous paper about what professionals see as performance, what communication performance is in particular and what are the factors that cause high performance. From that we developed a model which we tested in our recently published article.

The Communication Team Performance Model tested in research

In a quick summary, we found consistency in four factors that drive performance in corporate communications teams, and then four outcomes from communication teams that perform at high level.

Advertisementshttps://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.htmlREPORT THIS AD

The performance drivers are:

  • Full commitment – Fully committed teams have a clear vision, a shared set of team values, and team members who care about the team’s success.
  • Focus on results – Focused teams have a strategy that maps directly to business objectives, the right systems, tools and processes, and discipline around continuous learning and improvement.
  • Constructive conflict – Creative and innovative teams embrace constructive conflict. They welcome different ideas and opinions, promote open and honest communication, and provide timely and healthy feedback.
  • Shared accountability – Teams that share accountability have clear and relevant measures, empower and support their members, and recognize and reward performance.

When teams optimize these drivers, they’re more likely to enjoy these positive outcomes:

  • Attract and retain the right talent for current and future needs
  • Have a sufficient budget for current needs and future investment
  • Receive visible support from the CEO and C-suite executives
  • Earn the respect and trust of internal and external stakeholders

I share this research in the classes mentioned above because it validates the theoretical concepts I teach with affirmation from top communications professionals in our survey. It also is a good example of integrating theory and practice when an academic like myself partners in research from a professional like Mark Bain. The research is better, the students benefit more, and I would hope the profession at large gains from the insights as well.

How to measure corporate communications team performance

~ penningink ~ 1 Comment

Does your corporate communications team get the respect it deserves from top management and other departments? Does your communications team perform well? How do you know? What actually is team performance?

On October 8, I presented research on measuring the performance of corporate communications teams. The presentation was part of the Future of Communications virtual conference series hosted by the Institute for Public Relations. The full paper is also available in the proceedings of the International Public Relations Research Conference where I presented the work in March of 2020 in Orlando (see page 392).

The presentation was based on research I did with Mark Bain, president of upper 90 consulting, in which we surveyed chief communications officers (CCOs) as well as members of their teams at large organizations around the world.

Our research is based on a previous project in which we identified what CCOs think performance actually is when it comes to corporate communications teams. That research was published in PR Journal and can be accessed online here. From that previous research we developed a model (shown below) and then tested it with actual communication teams.

The model shows the key drivers of team performance, based on input from our previous study, in the colored areas. These are aspects of the team itself. The gray gears on the outside are both outcomes and enablers of high performance and describe attributes of the overall organizational context.

The drivers in the model can be defined as follows:

•Full commitment—characterized by a clear and shared vision, clear behaviors based on appropriate values and skills, and individuals who care about team success;

•Focus on results—characterized by strategy aligned with overall business objectives, having the right systems and tools, a desire for continuous learning and improvement;

•Constructive conflict—characterized by tolerance of different ideas and opinions, open and honest communications, timely and healthy feedback;

•Shared accountability—characterized by clear and relevant measures, a team that feels empowered and supported by management, recognition and reward of performance.

Similar, the enablers and outcomes are further described as:

•Recruiting and retaining the right talent on the team, including both the right types of skills and the right number of people;

•Sufficient budget to achieve objectives and invest in the future;

•Respect and trust, both for each other within the team and trust by people in other units or department in the business;

•Visible support, expressed by the CEO and other members of the C-suite.

Results

We found that CCOs and members of their teams agreed with the model in the sense that the variables were what they considered to be factors in high team performance. Their responses with regard to how well their own team performed varied on this model.

The variables in the model where teams tended to do well in their estimation of team performance were: cares about team success, have a strategy tied to business outcomes, and the team has respect from others in the business. The variables where teams rated themselves the lowest were having the right systems and tools, having the right number of people on the team, having enough budget to achieve objectives, and having enough budget to invest in the future.

What is interesting is that the CCOs rated their team’s performance higher than did their direct reports, who in turn rated the performance higher than all other members of the team. This is especially true where aspects of performance are more perceptual (implicit) than tangible (explicit). CCOs may feel more accountable for the team and therefore rate it higher, or they simple have a broader view and consider the whole organization.

Another interesting finding is that those who perceive their team role to be “enabling business outcomes” are more likely to rate their communication team performance higher than those who see their roles as “driving stakeholder advocacy” or “providing communication.” This may be explained by the fact that those who see their role tied to business outcomes may work in an organizational culture that values communications and thus provides more resources that contribute to performance. Or, because their view of communications is more mature and considerate of the total organization, they may naturally act in ways that drive performance as opposed to just staying department focused and fulfilling a basic function.

In the end, the model can serve as a practical tool for CCOs to measure a baseline of communication team performance. They can look at how they stand with factors affected by the team, as well as the aspects of the organization that enable or inhibit performance. Then they can address lapses or weak areas specifically and continue measure and chart performance in a meaningful and motivational way going forward.

What Makes for High-Performing Corporate Communication Teams

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

An issue of concern for any professional communicator is how well they are performing, but performance has to be considered not just in metrics of communication skill proficiency, but how well the communications functions contributes to the overall organizational goals.

Over the past year and a half I looked into this issue in a research project with Mark Bain, a top communicator in his own right who now does consulting as owner of upper90 Consulting. We conducted a series of phone interviews and then a survey of top Chief Communication Officers (CCOs) at top companies and organizations around the country. This resulted in a an article, “High-Performing Corporate Communications Teams: Views  of Top CCOs,” published in the latest issue of PR Journal (free online–a real benefit to professionals!). I’d encourage you to read it, but here are the takeaways:

From the interviews, these common themes emerged:

  • High-performing teams are adaptable;
  • High-performing teams are collaborative;
  • High-performing teams possess specific and appropriate forms and levels of expertise;
  • High-performing teams are analytical;
  • High-performing teams demonstrate leadership across the organization;
We also found that there are several impediments or barriers to high performing teams. One is a lack of clarity from top management about the roles, objectives, responsibility and accountability of each functional unit in an organization. This can lead to turf guarding or fighting over who owns what, such as communications and IT fighting over digital responsibilities, and other internal tensions that slow performance. 
Poor leadership, which relates to poor culture, were cited as other impediments to performance. Structural and organizational issues also were mentioned often, including the “silo” effect of internal departments or varied geographic locations not talking fluidly with each other. Finally, a lack of CEO understanding of and support of the communications function were a common problem indicated by top CCOs, as was an external environment of rapid change.
Taking the input from the interviews, we conducted a large scale survey to determine, among other things, what top CCOs valued as the key factors driving high performance in corporate communications teams. Of 20 factors that drive performance presented, eight had the highest value according to respondents. The top factors in order of importance by mean score are: 
  • function’s work is aligned with business goals;
  • people in the function collaborate effectively with others;
  • the communication function adapts quickly to change; 
  • demonstrate respect for others;
  • culture that allows people to do their best work;
  • people in communication understand the company’s business; 
  • a clear role in the company;
  • CEO support of the communications function; 
  • interpersonal skills.
It’s also interesting to look at common perceived impediments to high-performance of communication teams. Here, seven factors emerged:
  • A CEO who doesn’t value her/his employees;
  • lack of alignment around strategy;
  • unhealthy work culture; 
  • inability of organization to adapt to change; 
  • lack of clear vision for the organization; 
  • difficulty hiring and retaining talent; 
  • a silo approach to working in the organization. 
I’d encourage taking a look at these and seeing if they mirror the situation in your organization. Or use the results in goal setting as you counsel your CEO or other top management to develop the factors that drive performance. It will improve not just communications, but, since communication and public relations ARE a management function, it will improve the performance of the entire organization in terms of meeting strategic goals.