So let's discuss that sometimes problematic relationship between IC, HR and Marketing - a relationship I often describe as 'the Bermuda Triangle' because so many great ideas and good intentions disappear in the gulf between these three functions.
This could be a long and rambling one, so I'm likely to post in chunks - with more to follow over the next few days....
During my time in internal comms I've operated as part of a stand-alone corporate communications or reputation management team, a dedicated IC function reporting to the CEO, and under Marketing, PR and HR.
Wherever I've sat I've always managed to do good internal comms (I hope) and I've never had too many turf battles, but there's no doubt that the umbrella function you belong to has an impact on the type of work you do and the style and approach you adopt.
Let's have a closer look at each of these 'homes'.
Practitioners who sit under HR are, typically, focused on employee engagement, change management, culture, behaviour change, nuts and bolts HR communication (pension scheme, pay reviews, rolling out the latest self-service HR system, supporting the people survey) and, arguably, get closer to those all-important line managers. In recent years our colleagues in HR have done a good job at moving themselves up the corporate agenda by moving away from the transactional aspects of what they do, towards a more strategic/advisory role. As part of this shift we have seen a clear 'land grab' as many HR functions have absorbed internal comms.
Those located within Marketing, on the other hand, are more likely to be focused on internal branding or internal marketing initiatives. They are, perhaps, more likely to use the techniques of marketing and persuasion and adopt a more campaign-based approach in their work. Marketers usually have bigger budgets and, at long last, they are beginning to realise the critical role employees play in shifting product and building [or destroying] brands.
I have, in the past, been extremely vocal about the importance of IC being part of an integrated corporate communications team (a hang up perhaps from my early days as an externally-focused PR practitioner). The links with CSR, corporate reputation and stakeholder management are obvious and CorpComms has generally done a good job of owning and shaping IC in recent years.
PR is an odd one. It's either the same as CorpComms - a function focused on reputation management and broader stakeholder communications (for the enlightened at least) or a more narrowly-focused function obsessed with generating media coverage. If the latter, I suspect that IC would suffer from being highly tactical - about generating stuff and peddling positive management messages (read 'spin') to staff. But I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions out there.
I am, of course, generalising in the extreme here, but you get the picture -where you live affects your outlook on life. We'll no doubt discuss the differences some more over the coming days.
So what do the stats tell us?
According to the latest research I have from Melcrum (2006), the most common home for internal comms at present is within a 'joined up' corporate communications department - a team tasked with managing both internal and external comms. Just under half (44%) of the IC people Melcrum surveyed this year say they sit here. And the good news is that that figure has increased by 16% since 2003/04. This is music to my ears.
But at 18% a sizable number also report to HR (and the trend is positive, with the number of respondents giving that answer up 10% over the same period).
The remaining 19% are split between PR (at 8% - down 7%) and Marketing (at 9% - down 6%).
So, overall, there seems to be a trend towards an independent corporate comms department and HR and away from PR and Marketing, thought there are still nearly a fifth of practitioners located there.
Research from Karian & Box - published exclusively this month in HR magazine - sheds more light on this. In its latest IC Survey, K&B asked around 1000 communicators where they felt IC should sit. Just over half (54%) said they wanted a dedicated IC function, with HR and PR coming in at 18% and 21% respectively. Interestingly though, when asked whether they thought HR was well equipped to deliver effective internal comms, a sizable proportion (38%) declared no. And just under half (48%) felt that being part of HR could actually reduce effectiveness. So, despite the numbers, it sounds like the jury is still out on HR.
All this is, of course, indicative of a maturing profession - just one of the growing pains internal comms is experiencing as it struggles to be recognised and appreciated as the strategically important discipline it is.
For my part, experience tells me to be pragmatic about structure. I've seen great internal comms emerge from within HR, Marketing, PR and CorpComms and I have no doubt that, with the right professionals in place, any of these homes can be made to work. The organisation type is also an important factor - it can make sense for IC to align with Marketing in a very a marketing or brand-led business. Likewise, in a professional services business where the people are your brand, a stronger link to HR could pay dividends.
The purist in me yearns for IC to be part of an integrated, independent, all powerful corporate comms function, but I'm man enough to recognise that that's not the only answer.
However, structure aside, the most important thing is that internal communicators collaborate with, support, listen to, plan with and influence their colleagues in both Marketing/PR and HR. Ignore them at your peril. Rather than Bermuda Triangle, perhaps we should be thinking about these functions as the 'holy trinity' - a triad that, if it works together hand-in-hand, can ensure that internal comms genuinely enables business strategy, supports marketing objectives, unlocks employee engagement and facilitates change.
Recent Comments