An adage of modern business is that organization structure follow strategy. Where executive communications lives in the organization is an indicator of the focus and approach they will pursue. The role is often combined with other responsibilities, which can further flavor results. So if you have specific expectations you will want to consider these influences and choose carefully.
First consideration is whether the role is centralized, or decentralized? Is there a unifying team that creates unity of message and balanced utilization of executive capital? Or is it decentralized to the discretion of each executive? The tradeoff is often between alignment and agility.
Second, what level does the function report into? Some executives have the role as a direct report. A CEO chief of staff. A GM executive communications manager. Others opt for someone lower in the organization, to keep the bandwidth commitment contained. The tradeoff is creating a tight communication loop with the direct report, or creating some communication risk with layers of management and communication handoffs. A hybrid is to have a direct dotted line, which requires a level of trust and communication through those layers.
A third consideration is whether the role is combined with a strategy team, corporate marketing, public relations, or an administrative function? It is natural for the executive communications to align with the objectives and priorities of the organization it is placed in.
So the primary question is how important is executive communications in your overall priorities? If this is crucial for your strategy, then centralize and connect it high in the organization. If it is important but not crucial, you can centralize, but tuck it under a functional team. Lastly, you can leave the task to each executive to manage with their administrative resources or PR infrastructure.
コメント