Internal communication

1
Internal communication

• Communication Audits and what they can do for
  your organization

2
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.

3
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.

4

• 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
• Determine the amount of information underload and
  overload associated with the major topics,
  sources and channels of communication.
• Evaluate the quality of information communicated
  from and/or to these sources.
• Evaluate the quality of communication
  relationships, specifically measuring the extent
  of interpersonal trust, supportiveness,
  sociability and overall job satisfaction.

5
.cont. key objectives for a communication audit

• Identify the operational communication networks
  (for rumours, social and job related messages),
  comparing them with planned or formal networks
  (prescribed by organizational charts).
• Determine potential bottlenecks and gatekeepers
  of information by comparing actual communication
  roles of key personnel...with expected roles...
• Identify categories and examples of commonly
  occurring positive and negative communication
  experiences and incidents.
• Describe individual, group and organizational
  patterns of actual communication behaviours
  related to sources, channels, topics, length and
  quality of interactions.
• Provide general recommendations, derived from the
  Audit, which call for changes or improvements in
  attitudes, behaviours, practices and skills.
• (Goldhaber and Rogers, 1979)

6
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)

7
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.

8
Different approaches to implementing a
Communication Audit

• The questionnaire approach
• The interview approach
• The focus group approach
• Data collection log-sheet methods
• Critical Incident Technique
• Constitutive Ethnography
• 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.

9
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.

10
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
• Unanticipated information, greater depth and
  meaning of communication experiences.
• Enable auditors to get a better understanding of
  how organizational practices and issues are
  perceived and interpreted by the employees.
• 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)

11
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).

12
Structure of talk

• Introduction what is a communication audit?
• Different approaches to implementing a
  communication audit.
• 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.
• Conclusion.

13
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).

14
The questionnaire

• The respondents were asked to answer questions
  about the following
• 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?
• How much information do you receive and do you
  need to receive through the following channels?
• Do your colleagues respond in time on information
  sent?
• How much and when do you get information from the
  different sources?
• When do you get information from the different
  channels?
• Do you trust your colleagues?

15
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.

16
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

17

• 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

18
Levels of information the employees received from
different sources

• From my immediate colleagues 3.31
• From immediate managers (group leaders) 3.21
• From staff who are accountable directly to me
  3.06
• From the management of my department (middle
  managers) 2.80
• From rumours (the grapevine) 2.73
• From colleagues in other departments 2.18
• From the manager of my business area 1.95
• 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

19
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

20
Did the employees trust the people they were
working with?

• Immediate work colleagues, mean 4.3 (0.50)
• Immediate line managers (group leaders), mean
  4.2 (0.77)
• Management of the departments, mean 4.1 (0.85)
• Staff who are accountable directly to me, mean
  4.05 (1.18)
• The manager of my business area, mean 3.9
  (0.99)
• Colleagues in other departments, mean 3.89
  (0.71)
• Employees in other business areas, mean 3.7
  (0.81)
• 1 very little and 5 always.

21
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.

22
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.

23
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)