Search results

The purpose of this paper is to clarify and demonstrate the core contributions of communication departments to organizational success beyond traditional ideas of messaging or information distribution. The main aim is to develop a better understanding of the different facets of value that the communication function delivers by introducing a distinction between strategic and operational contributions, following established management models.

The research is based on an extensive literature review at the nexus of communication management and strategic management research and ten qualitative case studies in large, internationally operating German organizations from different industries, combining in-depth interviews and document analyses.

The newly developed Communications Contributions Framework demonstrates that communications serve the corporation in four strategic and operational dimensions and emphasizes the critical role of communications in reflecting and adjusting organizational strategies, i.e. through identifying opportunities to innovate or securing intangible assets.

The paper outlines different application scenarios for how the new framework can be used in practice, i.e. as a multi-faceted rationale for explaining the impact of communication departments in the language of top management and reporting communication success in the logic of business.

The framework provides the first theoretically and empirically based “big picture” of communications’ contributions to corporate success, designed to lay ground for further discussions both in academia and in practice.

The purpose of this article is to introduce the research field of management tools to communication management scholarship and open up new avenues for the field.

The first part examines established knowledge from the strategic management literature about management tools as a means to support and facilitate organizational decision-making. The second part reports on a survey among 125 communication practitioners in corporate communication departments about the use of 32 tools for the analysis, planning, implementation and evaluation of communication.

The study sheds light on the perceived relevance and benefits of tools, as well as on knowledge and satisfaction and on general patterns of tool use. The findings demonstrate that tools are gaining in importance, but there is a lack of understanding, training and documentation of tools. Tools for planning and implementing communication are most widely spread, reflecting the operational focus of corporate communication.

Practitioners find value in the compilation of the most popular tools and implications on how to reflect about tool usage and outcomes.

The article provides directions for future research and reflects about tools as a means to bridge the divide between theory and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the status quo of communication evaluation and measurement practices in communication departments of companies, non-profits, and other organizations across Europe.

The study argues that the challenge to conduct reliable measurement is threefold: first, communication professionals have to understand and develop skills how to conduct evaluation; second, they have to evaluate whether communication activities have reached those goals in practice; and finally, they have to use those insights to advance and manage their future activities. These aspects are elaborated in the literature review. A quantitative survey of 1,601 professionals from 40 European countries was conducted to research prerequisites, implementation and benefits of communication measurement and compare practices across types of organizations.

Although robust knowledge of empirical research methods and their application for measuring communication effects is indispensable, many practitioners lack the necessary expertise to conduct reliable evaluation and measurement. Communication departments seldom measure communication effects on stakeholders and organizational goals. Many remain focused on media and channels. Last but not least, organizations do not fully exploit the potential of measurement data for strategically planning future communication activities.

The findings highlight the need to reconsider current education and training in communication research methods and their application in corporate practice. Knowledge about conducting applied research is as important as asking meaningful questions and using insights for management decisions in a corporate environment. Evaluation methods are often discussed, but individual skills and the organizational use of insights are important as well. This might be tackled through additional training in social science research techniques, sophisticated valuation methods, and decision making.

The large-scale study shows that communication measurement practices are still in a nascent stage. Joint efforts of academics and professional associations have not really changed the situation until now. The three dimensions used in this research (skills, practices, and utilization) can be used to assess the measurement readiness of individual organizations, to conduct further research in other regions, and to identify future challenges for advancing the field.

The aim of this chapter is to shed light on a growing phenomenon in communication practice: employees speaking voluntarily for, about or on behalf of their organization, hereafter labelled as corporate ambassadors. The goal of this qualitative study is to analyze the role of corporate ambassadors within an organization and explore the perceived benefits and risks from three perspectives: the communication department, other departments such as marketing or human resources, and corporate ambassadors themselves. The research is based on an interdisciplinary literature review and 25 qualitative in-depth interviews with employees in one large, internationally operating German organization. By combining the theoretical and empirical insights, a conceptual framework that depicts the benefits (e.g., joy, increased trust, positive impact on reputation) and risks (e.g., work stress, lack of integration, loss of quality) of integrating corporate ambassadors into the overall communication of the organization was developed. In addition, this chapter suggests two typologies that help to distinguish between different roles of communication professionals and of corporate ambassadors. The contribution of this study is to lay a groundwork for further discussions about corporate ambassadors in the field of corporate communications. The chapter outlines directions for future research and implications for practice on how the framework can be applied in organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to report on a multi-step research project which explores concepts that explain communication value across different disciplines and builds a framework that identifies and systematizes communication goals linked to generic corporate goals.

Based on a literature review of work on value creation through communication, drawn from 815 publications in 36 international journals across several disciplines (public relations, marketing, management, etc.) and published from the year 2000 onward, the authors have developed a framework, named “Communication Value Circle.” The application of the framework was discussed with chief communication officers from global companies and was used during a communication alignment process in a global healthcare company.

Empirical surveys across several continents show that communication professionals use a multitude of rationales to explain the value of their work to top executives. These range from building reputation, brands and identity, to gaining thought leadership, boosting sales, motivating employees, preventing crises and listening to stakeholders. The researchers have identified four major value dimensions of communication (enabling operations, building intangibles, adjusting strategy, and ensuring flexibility). The framework encompasses 12 specific goals for communication that can be derived from corporate strategy.

The framework stimulates the debate on the diverse concepts of communication value, performance and measurement, and the need to integrate those approaches into theory and practice. Additional qualitative studies to verify the framework are proposed.

The communication value circle can be used as a management tool for planning, evaluating, and revising strategic directions for communication in any corporation.

Explaining the value of communication continues to be one of the most important challenges for professionals and scholars alike. This paper proposes a consistent explanation for the theory and practice of what constitutes corporate communication.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the current state of communication evaluation and measurement (E&M) as a vital field connecting academics and practitioners in communication management.

The authors track recent developments in the field, address the ongoing struggle toward E&M standards, and propose six agenda points for the future E&M debate.

While the authors see an engaged, international interest community making considerable headway in important E&M issues, the conclusion is that several areas require further work: dynamics of standardization; going beyond the effectiveness-based view; internal services evaluation; addressing intervening variables; closer ties to related fields; and dissemination into the wider practice.

The paper gives a pointed reflection of the state of the field and also provides a comprehensive list of current resources for those who aim to further the E&M debate.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the “evaluation deadlock” or “stasis” diagnosed by many authors. The explanation relies on a thought experiment.

The paper is conceptual and builds on a thought experiment inspired by qualitative research such as interviews with communication consultants in Sweden. It makes use of principal–agent theory and Akerlof’s theory of lemon markets.

A plausible explanation for the evaluation stasis requires consideration of practitioners’ self-interest as businesspeople. The deadlock is explained by an anomaly in practitioner populations and passive or active but covert resistance. If the long-time neglect of measurement and evaluation has led to expectation inflation and overpromising, even well-performing actors might shy away from rigorous measurement and evaluation practices in their own mandates, since they fear being measured against promotional, not realistic standards. At the same time, on the level of industry discourse, these practitioners would still advocate for measurement and evaluation in principle, so as to avoid the suspicion of underperformance.

The paper suggests an explanation for further empirical investigation. It does not attempt to demonstrate anything else than that the suggestion is plausible and that it warrants further investigation.

The scientific community engaged in the measurement and evaluation debate appears puzzled by the discrepancy between practitioners’ words and actions. The authors hope that the paper contributes to a more realistic and thus more constructive dialogue between practitioners and academics in the measurement and evaluation debate.

Inspired by Alvesson and Spicer’s concept of functional stupidity, the paper argues that attempts to explain the evaluation stasis have been marked by circumspection and narrowness. At present, explanations for the evaluation stasis tend to focus on lack of knowledge or inadequate systems or frameworks. The paper offers a more comprehensive explanation.