Communication Audit
The nature of a communication strategy
It is a truism that organisations seeking a competitive advantage must design their systems to at least match, and then exceed, world best practice. Organisational communication is no different. It has been suggested (Clampitt and Berk, 2000) that a world-class communication system has five key attributes:
• The leadership team has a strategic commitment to effective communication.
• Employees at all levels have the appropriate communication skills.
• There is a proper infrastructure of channels to meet organisational objectives.
• There are proper communication policies and procedures to meet organisational objectives.
• Information is managed in a way to meet organizational objectives.
Communication strategies are all about strengthening relationships, sharing ownership of key issues and relating communication priorities to key business issues. If an organisation does not develop and implement a coherent strategy to manage its communication, ad hoc and often dysfunctional methods will develop. A strategy provides both a path along which communications can be guided, and a structural set of processes and procedures to ensure success in this field. We have therefore suggested that a communication strategy can be defined as :
‘A process which enables managers to evaluate the communication consequences of the decision making process, and which integrates this into the normal business planning cycle and psyche of the organisation.’ (Tourish and Hargie, 1996, p.12)
Flowing from this, what concretely must managers do to develop a communication strategy and implement an audit process that will evaluate its effects? A number of excellent reviews are now available (e.g. Clampitt et al., 2000). Drawing upon this research, we suggest the following process:
1. Secure senior management commitment
2. Identify current practice (i.e. audit)
3. Set standards to measure success
4. Develop an action plan to achieve the standards
5. Measure the results (i.e. audit again)
We now discuss these steps in the context of outlining a robust communication audit process.
Meaning and Definition
The term audit first appeared in academic literature in the 1950s, and it has since been used on business, human resources and public relation practitioners. At its most basic, an audit is simply an evaluation of a designated process. A Communication Audit will thus be an evaluation of a communication process. It will be an investigation of how the internal (or external) communication processes in an organization actually work.
An evaluation of the entire communication activity of an organization to determine whether or not every primary and secondary public is receiving appropriate and intended messages…
Accurate information about the state of internal communications can best be obtained through the implementation of a communication audit. The main advantage of an audit is that it provides ‘an objective picture of what is happening compared with what senior executives think (or have been told) is happening’ (Hurst, 1991: 24). The findings provide reliable feedback and this in turn allows managers to make decisions about where changes to existing practice are required. A communication audit sheds light on the often hazy reality of an organisation’s performance, and exposes problems and secrets to critical scrutiny. It enables managers to chart a clear course for improved performance.
The term ‘audit’ is ubiquitous. Financial audits are well established, and clinical audits, medical audits, and organisation audits are also now widely employed. Three characteristics are, in fact, common to all audits (Hargie and Tourish, 2000):
1. The accumulation of information. This is the diagnostic phase of the audit. In communication terms, managers need information about the quality and quantity of communication flowing between different sectors of the organization.
2. The creation of management systems. This is the prescriptive phase of auditing. Once information has been gathered, systems must then be put in place to further develop best practice, and to remediate identified deficits.
3. Accountability. This is the functional aspect of the audit process. Specific individuals should be made accountable for different aspects of internal communication, so that when problems are highlighted someone is specifically tasked with ensuring these are swiftly dealt with. If a problem is everyone’s responsibility it is usually no-one’s responsibility.
Objectives of Communication Audit
During the 1970s the International Communication Association gave the issue of communication audits a lot of attention. This work identified the following key objectives to be achieved by implementing a communication audit:
1. Determine the amount of information under load and overload associated with the major topics, sources and channels of communication.
2. Evaluate the quality of information communicated from and/or to these sources.
3. Evaluate the quality of communication relationships, specifically measuring the extent of interpersonal trust, supportiveness, sociability and overall job satisfaction.
4. Identify the operational communication networks (for rumours, social and job related messages), comparing them with planned or formal networks (prescribed by organizational charts).
5. Determine potential bottlenecks and gatekeepers of information by comparing actual communication roles of key personnel…with expected roles…
6. Identify categories and examples of commonly occurring positive and negative communication experiences and incidents.
7. Describe individual, group and organizational patterns of actual communication behaviours related to sources, channels, topics, length and quality of interactions.
8. Provide general recommendations, derived from the Audit, which call for changes or improvements in attitudes, behaviours, practices and skills.
(Goldhaber and Rogers, 1979)
Purpose of conducting Communication Audit
To establish communication / public relations goals
To evaluate long-term programs
To identify strengths & weaknesses
To indicate areas for further consideration
Audits could tell managers and organizations the following:
• Who they are talking to.
• Who they should be talking to.
• What issues people are talking about.
• From which sources most people get their information.
• Through what communication channels information reaches people.
• The impact of all this on working relationships.
(Tourish and Hargie, 2000)
Scope of Communication Audit
An audit can examine the entire communication function of an organization or be confined to auditing the effectiveness of communication with one public. For example, you might audit only internal communication.
Different approaches to implementing a Communication Audit
1. The questionnaire approach
2. The interview approach
3. The focus group approach
4. Data collection log-sheet methods
5. Critical Incident Technique – CIT
6. Constitutive Ethnography
7. Delphi Technique
As each organization is unique, with its own special needs, it would not be fair to say that one approach is better than the other one.
The Questionnaire Approach: There are two basic options: choose a pre-existing instrument or develop a new one. There are several pre-existing instruments:
• Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire – the relationship between communication and job satisfaction (Downs and Hazen, 1977).
• ICA (International Communication Association) Audit Survey – amount of information received versus amount desired (Goldhaber and Rogers, 1979).
There will be benefits and drawbacks with both new questionnaires and using the pre-existing.
The Interview Approach: The interview is considered to be one of the most central tools within internal and external communication audits.
The interview method offer three main advantages over alternative information gathering strategies:
1. Unanticipated information, greater depth and meaning of communication experiences.
2. Enable auditors to get a better understanding of how organizational practices and issues are perceived and interpreted by the employees.
3. It will serve the need, both for auditors and respondents, for the audit to have a human and social aspect to discovery of information.
(Millar and Gallagher, 2000)
Focus Group Approach: These are ubiquitous, and have permeated all walks of professional life, from politics to marketing. They can be used to develop insights at a macro level (such as the impact of strategic decision-making) or on a micro level (such as detailed responses to particular communication messages). The open ended and interactive nature of focus groups produce insights from respondents that are difficult to obtain through other methods. Participants spark one another into action by sharing and developing ideas. Two main disadvantages are that more introverted staff are reluctant to participate, and some staff may be unwilling to express honest views in the presence of colleagues.
Critical Incident Technique
This method provide a detail insight into the communication process within the organizations A methodology used to educate instances of effective and ineffective behaviour in any context. First used to investigate specific competencies of air pilots in the Second World War. It is widely used in the audit context, where respondents are free to tell about any effective or ineffective communication experiences they have had. Usually this will be part of a questionnaire survey, but it is also possible to let this technique stand alone in a communication audit (Lount and Hargie, 1997).
Process of Conducting Communication Audit
1. Analyze all communication outputs
– Newsletters, web sites, Twitter feeds, Facebook pages, internal memos, presentations, videos, brochures, annual reports, media releases etc.
– Examine the format, tone, style, message, public targeted, quality, distribution, and/or update schedule (method, frequency)
2. Feedback from publics
o Informal interviews with front-line employees
o Formal interviews with middle and upper management
o Informal interviews with representatives of external publics
– Community/opinion leaders, media gatekeepers, industry professionals
o Informal online feedback from various publics through various channels
– Twitter chats or polls
– Facebook polls etc.
3. Organizing Your Data
Use a data table for organizing data
4. Data presentation & analysis
Prepare an audit report after analyzing data.
Section 1: Explanation of the organization’s mission & background
Section 2: Scope of the audit, rationale & methodology
Section 3: Description of the publics
Section 4: Analysis of each communication tool Quality? Appropriateness for public? Meet a specific communication need? “fit” with the organization? Accurate & consistent in message?
Section 5: Analysis of interviews
Section 6: Balance sheet of communication strengths & weaknesses; recommendations
Thus, the process of audit implementation should encompass these key stages:
1. Engage senior management commitment
At the outset of the audit process a problem focused workshop between senior management and the auditors should therefore be held. Such an event serves to:
(i) Improve the management team’s understanding of what can be achieved by audits, of how a world-class communication system can be built, and what it might look like in this organisation.
(ii) Clarify in-depth the value of audits, their role in this particular organisation and the commitment required from management if maximum advantage is to be obtained.
(iii) Identify the top half dozen issues on which people should be receiving and sending information.
(iv) Discuss the communication standards the management team believes they should adopt and live up to.
(v) The identification of a senior person or persons prepared to act as link between the organisation and the external audit team.
2. Prepare the organisation for the audit
Usually, a simple letter is sufficient to inform staff of the nature of the audit process, and the timescale which is envisaged. The letter must issue by the Chief Executive, thus putting the authority of this office behind the audit. This helps to ensure that managers facilitate access to audit participants, and generally engage with what is going on. It also binds the top management team into the audit exercise, by publicly identifying them with it. This makes it more likely that the results of the audit will be taken seriously and used to effect improvements in performance.
It may be necessary to address these issues during initial communications with audit participants. The following general rules help:
• Participants should be assured, orally and in writing, that their responses will be treated confidentially.
• Wherever possible, participants should be selected randomly.
• Only the audit team should have access to questionnaires, tape recordings or anything else which might identify individual respondents.
• Care should be taken, in writing the report, to ensure that it does not inadvertently enable readers to identify particular respondents.
3. Data gathering
This normally proceeds in two phases. A small number of preliminary first round interviews familiarises the audit team with staff or customer views, as well as management concerns. Typically, respondents will be randomly selected. Feedback obtained by this approach helps in the design of final questionnaires, if this is the main method to be used.
4. Analysis and action phase
A report is now prepared, which comprehensively describes and evaluates communication practices.
A completed audit provides a starting point for planning the balance sheet of strengths and weaknesses provides a strategic way to determine the problems and opportunities.
Communication Audits equip managers with insights into crucial areas of organizational functioning which are often ignored. Such insights, based on hard data, provide a good basis for the development of a sharply focused communication strategy and the strengthening of working relationships. (Hargie and Tourish, 1996)
Refernece
Clampitt, P., and Berk, L. (2000) A communication audit of a paper mill, in Hargie, O. and Tourish, D. (Eds.) Handbook of Communication Audits For Organizations, London: Routledge.
Clampitt, P., DeKoch, R. and Cashman, T. (2000) ‘A strategy for communicating about uncertainty’, Academy of Management Executive 14: 41-57.
Downs, C., and Hazen, M. (1977) ‘A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction’, Journal of Business Communication 14: 63-73.
Hargie, O. (1997) ‘Training in communication skills: research, theory and practice’, in O. Hargie (ed.) The Handbook of Communication Skills, London: Routledge.
Hargie, O., and Tourish, D. (2003) How Are We Doing? Measuring and Monitoring Organisational Communication in D. Tourish and O. Hargie (Eds.) Key Issues in Organizational Communication, London: Routledge.
Goldhaber, G. (2002) ‘Communication audits in the age of the internet’, Management Communication Quarterly 15: 451-457.
Goldhaber, G., and Rogers, D. (1979) Auditing Organizational Communication Systems: The ICA Communication Audit, Dubuque, Ia: Kendall/ Hunt.
Millar, R. and Gallagher, M. (2000) ‘The interview approach’, in Hargie, O., and Tourish, D. (eds) (2000) Handbook of Communication Audits For Organisations, London: Routledge.
Tourish, D., and Hargie, C., (1996) Internal communication: key steps in evaluating and improving performance, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 1:3, 11-16.
Shalini Pandey's Blog 