Internal communication Communication Audits – and what they can do for your organization

Structure of talk 1.Introduction – what is a communication audit? 2.Different approaches to implementing a communication audit. 3.Results from a communication audit done at Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace, where the main methodology was questionnaire. 4.Conclusion.

What is a Communication Audit? 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.

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 underload 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.

….cont. key objectives for a communication audit: 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)

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)

Structure of talk 1.Introduction – what is a communication audit? 2.Different approaches to implementing a communication audit. 3.Results from a communication audit done at Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace, where the main methodology was questionnaire. 4.Conclusion.

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 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)

Critical Incident Technique A methodology used to educe 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).

Structure of talk 1.Introduction – what is a communication audit? 2.Different approaches to implementing a communication audit. 3.Results from a communication audit done at Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace – Naval Systems, where the main methodology was questionnaire. The objective for this study was to map the internal communication flow at NAS by implementing a communication audit. 4.Conclusion.

Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace (KDA), business area of Naval Systems, NAS NAS is part of KDA, which consists of several other business areas. NAS has chosen a form of matrix structure, with one stable hierarchical management/organization, and a new organization/management for each new project. The hierarchical management has three levels: The business area manager, The leader of each department, and group leaders (immediate leaders).

The questionnaire The respondents were asked to answer questions about the following: 1.How much information are you receiving and do you need to receive about the following topics? How much information do you send and do you need to send about the same topics? 2.How much information do you receive and do you need to receive through the following channels? 3.Do your colleagues respond in time on information sent? 4.How much and when do you get information from the different sources? 5.When do you get information from the different channels? 6.Do you trust your colleagues?

Information received and information needed The quantity of information received on a variety of topics was assessed. The number of topics in this audit were 25 The quantity of information needed on the same topics was also assessed. There was a consistent need for more information across all the topics. But there were topics where the difference between received and needed quantity of information was especially large....although it will be important to be aware of the fact that even though the difference is big, the employees might not view the topic as particularly important. The respondents were asked to answer the questions according to a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = very little and 5 = very great.

Information topics where the information gap was especially large Decisions taken about the project I for the time being are working in : information received – 3.47, information needed – 4.24(nr. 1 and nr. 1) Decisions taken by the project management : information received – 3.24, information needed – 4.14 (nr. 2 and nr. 2) How decisions that will influence my job is taken (nr. 17 and nr. 4): information received – 2.52, information needed – 4.08 How do I perform in my job (nr. 13 and nr. 6): information received – 2.73, information needed – 3.93 How is my work evaluated (nr. 12 and nr. 8): information received – 2.74, information needed – 3.91 Decisions taken by the management of my business area (nr. 16 and nr. 11): information received – 2.55, information needed – 3.83

…and some topics where the information gap was large, but where the employees did not regard the topics as particularly important: Training of new employees (nr. 20 and nr. 21): information received – 2.16, information needed – 3.12 Fadderordningen (nr. 22 and nr. 24): information received – 1.98, information needed – 2.98 The relationship between my business area and other business areas (nr. 23 and nr. 22): information needed – 1.95, information needed – 3.05 The relationship between the concern management and my business area (nr. 25 and nr. 25): information received – 1.54, information needed – 2.71

Levels of information the employees received from different sources 1.From my immediate colleagues – From immediate managers (group leaders) – From staff who are accountable directly to me – From the management of my department (middle managers) – From rumours (the grapevine) – From colleagues in other departments – From the manager of my business area – From employees in other business areas – 1.64 They received most information from their immediate colleagues, mean = 3.31 (0.84) They needed to receive most information from their immediate managers, mean = 3.92 (0.75) They received least information from employees in other business areas, mean = 1.63 (0.72) They needed to receive least information from the grapevine, mean = 2.12 (0.96) 1 = very little and 5 = very great

Evaluation of some of the channels through which information was obtained The total number of channels that were assessed were 20 Face-to-face contact among people in my work area: received information = 3.83, needed information = 4.03, (nr. 1 and nr.2) Staff meetings: received information = 3.36, needed information = 3.72 (nr. 2 and nr. 5) Special talks given by (my) leader/manager: received information = 3.29, needed information = 3.83 (nr. 3 and nr. 4) Project meetings: received information = 3.27, needed information = 4.03 (nr. 4 and nr. 1) Face-to-face contact between myself and my leader: received information = 3.25, needed information = 3.90 (nr. 5 and nr. 3) The intranet: received information = 2.02, needed information = 3.14 (nr. 12 and nr. 7) 1 = very little and 5 = very great

Did the employees trust the people they were working with? 1.Immediate work colleagues, mean = 4.3 (0.50) 2.Immediate line managers (group leaders), mean = 4.2 (0.77) 3.Management of the departments, mean = 4.1 (0.85) 4.Staff who are accountable directly to me, mean = 4.05 (1.18) 5.The manager of my business area, mean = 3.9 (0.99) 6.Colleagues in other departments, mean = 3.89 (0.71) 7.Employees in other business areas, mean = 3.7 (0.81) 1 = very little and 5 = always.

Comparing different groups in the organization in relation to information topics (the comparison was done by a factor analysis – ANOVA) The tendency was that management were more satisfied with the amount of information they received on the various topics than those without leadership responsibility were.

Structure of talk 1.Introduction – what is a communication audit? 2.Different approaches to conducting a communication audit. 3.Results from a communication audit done at Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace, where the main methodology was questionnaire. 4.Conclusion.

Conclusion The Communication Audit Approach is just as well suited for Norwegian companies, as for companies in the USA or Great Britain. The results from the survey done at NAS shows that a company in Norway will not differ very much from companies other places in the world. 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)