Communication managers as strategists: can they make
the grade?
(Journal of Communication Management, 2001)
Peggy Simcic Brønn
Assistant Professor
Norwegian School of Management
P. O. Box 580
1301 Sandvika
Norway
Ph. 47 67 55 73 14
e-mail: peggy.bronn@bi.no
Abstract
When discussing the role of executives within the function of public
relations and their involvement in decision making, the emphasis in much
research has focussed on the dichotomous roles of technician and manager.
From this research it is concluded that an executive’s input into an organization’s
strategic decision making is dependent on how dominant they enact the managerial
role. This article asserts that there is more to being an accepted member
of the top management team than role enactment. Enacting the managerial
role in fact is nothing more than performing high-level technical role
activities. A new measurement is on the scene, strategic thinking. What
this is and how it can be measured is discussed below.
Key words: strategy, role enactment, strategic thinking, issues management, environmental scanning, planning
Introduction
Most researchers agree on the increasing importance of the role of communications within organizations. Establishing itself as a contributor to strategy formulation has been identified as one of the most important goals for the public relations industry. (1) According to Potter, (2) enlightened senior managers increasingly demand that communication managers become more involved in contributing to achieving an, goals and objectives. This includes being involved in putting into action key strategies. Further, it has been demonstrated that a key characteristic of ‘excellent’ organizational communication is strategic communication management. (3) Grunig and Grunig(4) contend that public relations managers who demonstrate they can behave in a strategic manner can help an organization achieve its goals and thus help empower the managers. One word repeated throughout the literature is ‘strategic’; public relations managers should provide strategic counsel, they should take part in strategy formulation, and they must be able to implement strategies. Why is it, however, that so many agree that public relations managers are still not making it on to the top management team?
The term ‘participation in decision making’ is often used without explanation as to what the concept actually refers. (5) A number of studies exist on participation in decision making. Cotton et al. (6) report on studies of the effects of participation in decision making on employee satisfaction and performance. Jaques (7) criticizes the application of Japanese managerial accountability movements to managerial decision making in US firms. Daniels and Bailey (8) study strategy development processes and participation in decision making, concluding that people who participate in strategic decision making have the possibility to influence their working environment, which influences their job satisfaction. Most of these studies are interested in correlating such things as job satisfaction or role stressors and participation in decision making. Their emphasis could be characterized as being on employee empowerment, not necessarily on the activities at different levels of decision making.
Chakravarthy and Lorange (9) offer a simplified four-level view of the ‘typical multibusiness’ organization with four corresponding types of managers and strategies. These are shown in figure 1. The four levels, starting from the bottom, are functional level managers, business unit managers, divisional managers, and, at the top, the chief executive officer and other top managers. Correspondingly, the strategies are functional strategies, business strategies, business family strategies and corporate strategies.
Organization Structure Type of Strategy
Figure 1: Organizational Levels and Types of Strategies (adapted from Chakravarthy and Lorange, 1991)
As explained by Chakravarthy and Lorange, corporate strategies provide the umbrella under which lower level strategies are drafted. The team at this level consists of the chief executive officer and a top management team who decide, among other things, where the organization will compete, the allocation of resources, and strengthening the organization’s business portfolio. The strategies at the lower levels become more operational, culminating in the functional level where managers are most concerned with implementing the various strategies decided at the upper levels.
This configuration corresponds with the chart adapted in White and Dozier, (10) which delineates 7 levels of decision responsibilities within an organization. The lowest level is the shop and office floor and the highest is the chair of the corporate group. In this configuration, level 2 consists of the corporate or sector executives. As we move up the hierarchical ladder in the organization, as demonstrated in both Chakravarthy and Lorange and White and Dozier, decision complexity increases from ‘concrete operational decisions’ (p. 95) to more ‘social and more abstract decisions’ (p. 98). These more complex decisions are most often referred to as strategic decisions. These decisions would correspond to Chakravarthy and Lorange’s corporate strategies.
Again there are a number of definitions for strategic decisions. Schwenk, (11) after looking at many different definitions of strategy, describes strategic decisions as decisions that are ill-structured and non-routine, i.e. are unique and use complex decision rules; are especially important to the organization; and are generally very complex. According to Quinn (12) strategic decisions determine the overall direction and viability of an organization. They are recognized as superior to goals, policies and programs. Operational decisions, in contrast, are those that tend to be short-term and which are based on the strategic, or long-term, plans of the organization. They result in tactics, or policies, i.e. the specific actions that organizations do to implement strategies. As stated by Quinn, (13) strategic decisions are critical in determining the viability of an organization in ‘light of the predictable, the unpredictable and the unknowable changes that might occur in its most important environments’. (14)
Public Relations Executives and Involvement in Strategic Decision Making
Research indicates that public relations practitioners are seldom included in the dominant coalition, (15) defined as the senior managers who control the organization. (16) Similarly, White and Dozier (17) provide evidence that communication managers are rarely formally empowered as decision-makers at the strategic level where they would encounter the dominant coalition. L. Grunig (18) cites several reasons for this: lack of broad business expertise, passivity, naiveté about organizational politics, and inadequate education, experience or organizational status. As a result public relations professionals often do not have an influential position in their organizations.
Guth (19) notes that the ‘perceptual’ gap between management and public relations practitioners’ view of the role of public relations is a serious problem. In this case the gap has to do with the differences between management and public relations managers’ views of the importance of public interest, with the PR managers feeling as though neither they nor the public are taken seriously by upper management. Mintzberg, (20) writing on the manager’s job perhaps reflects this view when he says, not very flatteringly, that public relations jobs are those that are ‘free of content; limitless, frameless and actionless . . . a job detached from its internal roots’. (21)
As noted by Vercic, (22) public relations traditionally is relegated to a functional level as opposed to the strategic decision-making level where decisions are referred to as more social and more abstract. (23) However, Vercic proposes that public relations is at its most effective within the framework of organizational strategic management, i.e. at the corporate level made up of chief administrative officers and executive managers. MacMillan (24) also found that the extent of consultation and involvement in strategic processes is key for public relations managers being accepted in top management. This has been characterized by Dozier (25) as being involved in management decision-making, or decision making taken by senior level managers. In this article, the term strategic decision making will be used to connote decisions taken at the corporate level of the organization, thus implying that those involved in strategic decision making are executives of the organization and are thus members of the top management team.
Prerequisites for Involvement in Decision Making
A number of antecedents have been identified within the public relations
literature as necessary for participating in strategic decision making
(see figure 2). These include managers’ previous education and, (26) their
perceived position in the organization, (27) and the dominant role enacted
by the public relations manager. (28) It is this last antecedent that has
received the most attention however as a determinant of whether or not
public relations practitioners participate in strategic decision making.
Two primary roles have been identified: the technician role and the managerial
role. (29) These two roles represent the main role dichotomy of public
relations practitioners within organizations and provide the basis for
a number of propositions dealing with role enactment. According to Dozier,
(30) roles are related to participation in management decision making,
and those who enact primarily the manager role are more likely to be involved
in management decision making.
Figure 2: Summary of antecedents of involvement in decision-making.
The technician is seen as someone who produces, for example, brochures, pamphlets, and so on. In other words, they perform the various task-related or operational aspects of public relations. The managerial role, as described by Dozier, is measured by asking respondents if they 1) take responsibility, 2) are viewed as an expert, 3) observe that they are held accountable, 4) make policy decisions, 5) operate as a catalyst in management decision making, 6) recognize need for planning, and 7) keep management informed. It can be argued that it is relatively easy to measure the technician role primarily because it results in the production of things that can be observed. However, measuring the managerial role entails asking public relations managers to assess themselves on not very concrete descriptors. It does not address their competencies to carry out the activities that Dozier associates with the role of managers. Further, by continually relying on the role dichotomy construct, researchers and practitioners miss the wealth of new thinking regarding how today’s organizations are developing, including the role of senior level communications practitioners. Perhaps there are other, more critical issues that need to be addressed as part of the above model.
Is Measuring Role Enactment Still Relevant?
Recently, researchers and authors have begun to contend that today being a manager is not as important as being a ‘leader’. Katzenbach (31) asserts that managers know how to do things – they can create budgets, enforce policies and carry out procedures. But, asks Katzenbach, are they able to encourage people to help an organization change and grow? Sanborn, (32) who maintains that there are substantial differences between managers and leaders, echoes this. He cites the original etymology in Greek in defining the word ‘manage’ as meaning to handle or maintain and the word ‘lead’ as meaning to go from, taking followers from one place to the next. Further, according to Sanborn, managers may have positional power but leaders have power with people.
Sjøberg (33) also differentiates between leaders and managers. He maintains that leaders have vision, create change and motivate others to realize their fantasies. Managers, on the other hand, work hard, are analytic, tolerant and fair. Eriksen (34) looked at leader competencies as a career anchor. Persons who desire careers as leaders are motivated to take positions of responsibility where their competencies can be demonstrated. This includes analytical skills (the ability to identify and solve problems under uncertainty), interpersonal skills (the ability to work effectively with people in groups and in difficult situations with many groups), and emotional skills (the ability to take difficult decisions without being emotionally affected).
Zabriskie and Huellmantel (35) differentiate between strategic leaders and operational leaders. Operational leaders have skills that enable them to manage resources. Strategic leaders, on the other hand, are skilled in ‘selecting future markets to enter and achieving growth for the organization’. (36) Other studies have generated lists of leadership competencies, including both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ variables. (37)
Hinterhuber and Popp (38) ask the question: Are you a strategist or just a manager? According to these authors, there is a clear dividing line between managers and strategists, those who are successful at, among other things, visioning, empowering and embracing an entrepreneurial approach to business. And it is important, say these authors, that organizations are able to differentiate between these managers for the long-term success of the organization, particularly in environments with constant change.
New Antecedent -- Strategic Thinking
Strategic planning is concerned with what shall be done when it comes to an organization envisioning and developing the necessary procedures and operations to achieve their future. (39) Mintzberg (40) is of the opinion that there is no system, technique, or program that can help with the planning process. The only necessary competency is ‘sharp minds in touch with the situation’. He intimates that the best thing planners can do is to stimulate others to think strategically, and that the real art of planning has to do with the ability to detect what he calls discontinuities. Kenichi Ohmae (41) contends that ‘successful business strategies result not from rigorous analysis but from a particular state of mind’ (p. 4). He refers to the mind of the strategist and allows that the analytical and operational roles of managers are necessary but they must also have a sense of mission, they must be creative and intuitive. In other words, a strategic leader is both operational and creative.
The concept of strategic thinking is only now obtaining some status, perhaps spurred by the enormous interest in the ‘learning organization’. (42) It is recognized as a prerequisite for planning activities within an organization and is an important characteristic of managers. Prahalad and Hamel (43) have stated that strategic thinking needs to be a core competency of an organization, requiring that managers need to develop strategic insights to guide the company. Christensen (44) asserts that strategic thinking tends be lacking as a managerial core competency in organizations that find it difficult to change strategy. Chakravarthy and Lorange (45) list nurturing strategic thinking as a critical element of top management when it comes to successful strategic processes.
Janis (46) outlines steps that he says characterize a vigilant problem-solving approach to decision-making: Describing the threat or opportunity, formulating the problem, using information resources, analyzing and reformulating, evaluating and selecting and so on. These steps form a descriptive model of what Janis says executives are capable of doing when they are trying to make the best decisions possible. They are reflected in Mintzberg’s (47) seven routines of the steps involved in strategic decision-making: recognition, diagnosis, search, design, screening, evaluation/choice, and authorization, with the diagnostic step being the most important. Hayes (48) says managers must be able to think strategically in order to:
Schilit (52) examined the factors that are important in the process
of upward influence between middle-level managers and their superiors in
a number of strategic decisions in an organization. He found that the most
often-mentioned method of upward influence was the ability to logically
present ideas through rational or persuasive argument. It could be argued
that this compares to Zabriskie and Huellmantel’s description of a strategic
leader. Finally, Vaghefi and Huellmantel (53) found that at the leadership
level of senior manager, defined as directors, vice presidents, executive
vice presidents, among others, 70 percent of the skills needed were strategic-conceptual
and entrepreneurial, which they defined as strategic thinking, scenario
planning and issues management. Table 1 provides a summary of the main
authors presented above.
| Author | Characterization of Strategic Thinking |
| Mintzberg (1976) | 7 steps |
| Ohmae (1982) | a state of mind |
| Mintzberg (1989) | sharp minds in touch with the situation |
| Janis (1989, 1992) | vigilant problem-solving |
| Senge (1990) | learning organization |
| Prahalad & Hamel (1990) | core competency |
| Quinn (1991) | prerequisite for planning activities |
| Zabriskie and Huellmantel (1991) | six-step model for strategic leaders |
| Schilit (1993) | necessary for upward movement |
| Dulewicz & Herbert (1996) | factor for measuring success of managers |
| Christensen (1997) | lacking in organizations that find it difficult to change |
| Vaghefi and Huellmantel (1998) | skill needed for senior management |
Table 1: Characteristics of strategic decision-making/strategic thinking by author
Strategic thinkers appear to be people who are both creative and analytical/logical. Creativity is required because of the need to be futures-oriented, to make or create scenarios based on today’s view of the world and possible futures. Analysis is required to make sensible and logical extrapolations and to present them in a readable and understandable manner. It also seems that being able to think strategically is a primary requisite for being able to perform at the highest levels of an organization. The ability to create ‘sanity’ out of an often unpredictable environment by making decisions that are complex and have a huge impact on the organization appear to be key characteristics of managers who are part of the dominant coalition. As pointed out by Belardo and Harrald, (54) the more complex the environment organizations find themselves in, the more they must be decision- as opposed to process-focused. This is particularly true for the decision-making abilities required for being future oriented.
Conceptualizing Strategic Thinking
The concept of strategic thinking is a difficult abstraction. It is a generally acknowledged concept but one that many view or perceive in different ways. However, there are a number of models that reflect, and are recognized as being employed by, organizations that are proactive or futures oriented. They all deal with detecting and analyzing issues, selecting courses of action, and evaluating outcomes. They thus mirror the processes that represent a strategic way of thinking. They are all also systems models in that they imply iterative processes that occur continually within organizations as they seek to survive in rapidly changing environments. Analysis of these models can provide the basis for identifying assumptions that underlie visible quantifiers of strategic thinking. These models include: Issues Management (55), Strategic Issues Management (56) , Integrated Strategic Planning Systems, (57) and Issues Life Cycle & Planning & Issues Life cycles. (58) From these models three major attributes of strategic thinking are identified. These are: using research-based information, working with a plan, and being involved with top management (figure 3).
Figure 3: Conceptualization of attributes associated with strategic
thinking.
Research-based information
Information gathering, also referred to as environmental scanning, concerns the collection of information within and from without the organization. (59) It is a method for identifying sources of opportunities and threats using a variety of methods. (60) It is generally agreed that this activity is a key component of strategic processes, as the acquisition of information is a major organizational effort. The importance of tracking issues and the methods and sources of gathering information (arguably issues management and environmental scanning) is also a source of power:
"Similarly, the resources expended on gathering, processing, and displaying information indicate the quantity and quality of information an individual or organization is likely to have. Displaying information and being able to explain decisions or ideas in terms of information indicate an ability to use information easily and appropriately" (p. 418). (61)
Working from a Plan
Managerial planning normally takes the form of strategic or tactical plans. (66) Strategic plans are long-range and are usually made by upper management, while tactical plans are specific operational instructions on how things should be done. As stated earlier in this chapter, strategic planning is concerned with what shall be done when it comes to an organization envisioning and developing the necessary procedures and operations to achieve their future. (67) The existence of a plan is recognized as an essential management tool. White and Dozier (68) found that when PR managers are able to put their findings into the local, idiosyncratic language/coding schemes they are able to provide other members of upper management the tools necessary for developing strategy. Therefore it is possible to conclude that operating from a plan is an indication of strategic behavior.
One example of this is the area of crisis management. The reputations of many organizations suffer because they have not responded properly in the face of a crisis. It is here that strategic planning is invaluable. Cutlip et al. advise that successful handling of crises requires anticipating possible scenarios, planning how to respond to these scenarios, recognizing early stages of a possible crisis and responding immediately as part of a systematic crisis management plan. (69) Baskin et al. find that the key to crisis public relations is having an up-to-date workable crisis plan and taking positive action. (70) Fortune 500 companies tend to have crisis plans in place, according to research from 1993, and nearly half of those who did not have a plan were developing one. (71) The ability to carry out the steps necessary in creating a crisis plan is critical.
Member of top management team
According to Grunig, (72) the role of public relations managers in the decision-making process is to be communicators, and as members of the dominant coalition they can perform a two-way function; communicating stakeholder views to senior managers and vice versa. They also communicate to other managers the consequences of decisions based on their knowledge of how various stakeholder groups react to certain issues. This special boundary-spanning role between organization and environment demands input into the strategic decision-making process at the highest level. L. Grunig (73) acknowledges that professionals who want to have an influence on strategic decisions have more effect if they are part of the dominant coalition than if they are operating as technicians. Dozier (74) believes that if corporate communicators are to truly help an organization adapt to change in its environment they must participate in the strategic decision-making process, not merely implement decisions made by others.
Using these constructs as measurements of strategic thinking, Brønn (75) was able to map senior public relations managers’ beliefs regarding what she refers to as espoused strategic orientation and perceived strategic orientation in use. The quantitative methodology conjoint analysis was used to measure whether or not the managers preferred to use the constructs in a crisis situation. It also measured how important they found each construct. Key was finding those managers who believed using the constructs was the best way to handle crisis planning and who also believed that the constructs were equally important. Very few managers found the constructs to be equally important. In a few cases, managers found involvement with top management to be the only important construct. About 26 percent of the managers believed that employing the above constructs was the best way to proceed and were equally important. Using these criteria, these managers were defined as espousing a strategic orientation.
Similarly, only about 17 percent believed that they were actually employing the constructs when dealing with crises and that their office found them equally important. These managers were defined as employing a strategic orientation. Further research on a very small sample using a self- and peer assessment paralleling the constructs in the conjoint analysis along with participant observation found that public relations managers do not perceive themselves, nor are they perceived, as having very much more than average competencies that would allow them to participate in strategic decision making. Some of this research is reported in Brønn and Olson (76)
Conclusion
In his study of practitioners’ roles Dozier addresses the measurements of strategic thinking identified here. (77) For example, he proposes that those who enact the manager role, as opposed to the technician (operational) role, engage in social scientific research, informal evaluation (individualistic, subjective techniques) and environmental scanning more often than those not enacting the manager’s role. However, Theaker (78) asks ‘Has anything really changed?’ She still sees media relations forming the bulk of senior public relations executives’ work in spite of what she calls the growing concerns of the use of strategic planning, issues management and evaluation. As pointed out by Grunig, in spite of all of the normative theory regarding what he refers to as ‘excellent practices’, public relations managers usually are not perceived as strategic managers. (79)
Vaghefi and Huelmantell suggest that 70 percent of the skills necessary for upper managers include strategic thinking. (80) According to Hamel, the need for strategic thinking has never been as great as in today’s turbulent times. (81) It appears that those responsible for communicating with an organization’s stakeholders, those who are in natural boundary spanning positions and who have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening in society, need to play a major role in strategy innovation.
Research indicates that public relations managers are aware of the steps
needed to become more strategic. (82) They believe that public relations
education needs changing, that the profession needs to be redefined, and
that public relations should be recognized as a management discipline.
Perhaps it is time to move away from the constant focus on role enactment
and start looking at individual competencies
References