Where’s the right home for Internal Communications and Employee Engagement in organisations?

For many years, it’s been a matter of debate where internal communications and employee engagement should sit within organisations. Should it be aligned with HR? Should it be part of Corporate Communications? Should it sit under Marketing? Or should it report directly to the CEO?

 

Internal Communications – where it sits in organisations and where it should be

At the end of 2008, a consultancy called Karian and Box working with HR Magazine surveyed 546 individuals working in internal communications in the UK. 44% of respondents reported that internal communications in their organisation was part of Corporate Communications, 22% that it sat within HR, 18% under Marketing, while 13% were part of Operations.

When asked which part of their organisation SHOULD take the lead in internal communications, a strong 54% of respondents said that it should be a completely independent unit – presumably reporting directly to the CEO. Of the remainder: 21% said it should be part of PR and 18% said it should sit within HR.

What is particularly interesting about this research is the gulf between where those responsible for internal communications thought their function should lie, and where they actually sat. With so many of them thinking that the function should be independent – and thus reporting to the CEO – could it be that there was an inflated view of the value of internal communications? Or was it that they felt that the function wasn’t delivering its full value – as neither HR nor Corporate Communications fully understood what they were doing?

 

The overlap with HR on employee engagement – and internal communication as the weaker partner

In the last posting on this blog, I made the point that internal communications – particularly as it transforms into employee engagement – has encroached in an area that the HR profession increasingly sees as part of its core remit.

Based on some of the comments I received on that last post, there is now a strong possibility that this overlap will lead to a merger or takeover, where I regret to say internal communications could be the weaker partner.

 

Why internal communications should be with HR

Since the 1950s, HR has moved (albeit slowly) from a function that was focused on policies and procedures to one that has been squarely centred on creating and sustaining a high performance work system. At the core of this is better productivity – something that is closely related to employee engagement.

More recently, many HR functions have reoriented themselves to follow the priorities set down by David Ulrich – an individual frequently voted as the single most influential person in the HR field.

Ulrich forcefully argues that HR functions have a critical part of play in enriching the value of organisations, and can do this through four key roles.  Two of these link strongly to employee engagement and internal communication. These are: a) being a partner in the execution of strategy; and b) being an agent of transformation, particularly around developing a culture organisations’ ability to change.

A third priority that he outlines – that of being a champion for employees – directly overlaps with the role of internal communication. This involves HR functions “vigorously representing their [employees] concerns to senior management” and “at the same time working to increase employees’ commitment to the organisation and their ability to deliver results.” This is critically similar to the core roles of internal communication and a mandate for HR to get involved in employee engagement.

 

HR has better access to the levers of engagement

In putting these priorities into practice, HR has better access to the levers of employee engagement than Internal Communications functions. HR has responsibility for performance management systems, reward, recognition, organisational design, work practices, organisational development and training, recruiting and resourcing, as well as providing practical supporting managers to get the best out of their people.

In addition, HR also has responsibility for the Employer Brand and the Employer Value Proposition – in effect, the external presentation of the organisation and key factors in the engagement of new recruits.

In comparison, Internal Communications can use channels to influence attitudes and behaviours and to inform and share. Ultimately, though, these elements are less extensive, less impactful and less self-supporting than the engagement levers that are within the grasp of HR.

However, the one golden advantage that Internal Communications has over HR in the engagement field is creativity – in particular, the ability to inspire, build emotion and create passion. While the HR levers are certainly practical and self-supporting, their use is rarely inspirational or likely to cause people to fundamentally change their thinking. Creativity is simply not something that is synonymous with HR – and is the one area that gives disproportionate strength to Internal Communications.

  

What about the alternatives – Corporate Communications, the COO, the CEO?

There are good arguments in favour of having internal communications reporting elsewhere within organisations.

One of the chief candidates could be Corporate Communications. After all, it’s argued that corporate communications (media, investor, public affairs) is primarily about getting the company’s messages out to different audiences. Is internal communications any different?

While both corporate communications and internal communications often focus on “messages,” there are fundamental differences in approach and even the type of audience. First of all, employees know their organisation better than any other audience. Talking “to” them and treating them like audiences that sit outside the organisation would therefore be a mistake.

Secondly, if engagement is a key goal, then the approach taken to employees has to be different to that of other audience groups. Corporate Communications generally don’t have the people experience or knowledge of employee engagement. Even where internal communications reports in to Corporate Communications, there is often a strong dotted line to HR.

Thirdly, the interactive nature of internal communication and employee engagement makes it different from the other forms of communication handled by Corporate Communications, which are often on the ‘send-receive-understood’ basis.

As for Marketing, while it certainly has the creative flair and approach, the concept of “internal marketing” to a company’s own employees has been pretty much disproved as an approach to internal communications and engagement. Like Corporate Communications, Marketing also lacks the people knowledge required.

Finally, while reporting into the CEO may well be the desired solution for many Heads of Internal Communication, practical experience shows that CEOs generally don’t have the time or the experience to have a direct report covering internal communication and engagement. HR is normally expected to cover the people aspects of an organisation, while for listed companies the attentions of CEOs is primarily focused on the company’s finances and keeping investors on-side.

As for COOs, in the context of change and operations there is a fit with internal communications – but in terms of behaviours and attitudes, the reality is that it’s not normally their area of expertise. There are some companies that have internal communications reporting into the COO and it seems to work well, but for most companies, if there’s a strategic goal to improve employee engagement – that priority often lies with HR.

 

So if it is to be HR, what can Internal Communications do to prevent being under-valued?

There are three key strengths of Internal Communication that gives it value above it being a mere set of processes or as a sub-branch of HR.

The first, as mentioned above, is creativity. Having worked in one of the major specialist HR communications consultancies, my judgement is that most internal communications managers often have substantially more knowledge of creativity and what can make employees passionate, willing to change or deliver additional effort than HR managers. It’s the sort of “magic dust” that HR functions and operational managers strongly value in internal communications.

Second, is the ability to run and manage effective, attention-grabbing channels that are not just mechanical compliance processes – but are valued, read and have credibility within the organisation. Importantly, internal communications has the enviable ability of writing great, empathetic content that is not “rules and regulations” but is meaningful and approachable for employees.

Finally, I’ve mentioned the overlap of internal communication’s employee engagement efforts with those of HR. Rather than seeing this as a weakness; it could perhaps be an advantage.  While HR’s levers are generally processes, those elements that are in the hands of internal communication often have a stronger impact and have more of a real meaning for employees.

Rather than seeing the two sets of efforts as competing, internal communications functions should offer to advise, consult or even take on the engagement processes of HR to give them the kind of genuineness and high impact that make a difference to employees. In this way, internal communications can make a difference both to HR and the wider organisation.

 

sanjoy@mansfield.plus.com