Communication Audit
-
Upload
gardnerlauramarie -
Category
Documents
-
view
495 -
download
5
description
Transcript of Communication Audit
Gardner
Laura GardnerProfessor HollingworthMidtermNovember 10, 2008
Discussing the Communication Audit
Communication audits are a “package of instruments used in the assessment of
employees’ perceptions of the communication processes in their organization” (Dewine
& James 144). The process involves the communication auditor researching the climate
of the organization by means of multiple research methods and various techniques. The
methods used to conduct this research begin vague and become more comprehensive
throughout the process. Methods used by communication auditors include survey,
questionnaire, interview, observation, comparison, and measurement. One way to
imagine the process is to picture a strainer. An auditor gathers information, ideas or
subjects that may be of interest or need more clarification, and pours it into the
questionnaire strainer. This process continues until the auditor has detailed quantitative
and qualitative results that can be analyzed and used in the audit process. It is important
to add that observing and talking to employees is not the only information that an auditor
should use. Other resources include newsletters, annual reports, mission statements, and
the company websites (public and intranet). These sources allow the auditor to determine
what messages are being sent to the internal and external public and can also show the
role of employees in communication. For example, a newsletter with submissions from
several employees from multiple departments points to a high level of employee
involvement. After observations have been completed, the job of the auditor is to
interpret the information that has been gathered. If the auditor has data from a similar
organization he can compare the two, allowing the auditor to make similar
1
Gardner
recommendations. The following paragraphs explore the methods of a communication
audit; the use of different techniques, and the steps that are taken after the data has been
collected. This includes the role of an auditor, evaluation of the audit, and follow-up
options.
Role of The Auditor
Before pursuing the methodology of communication audits, it is important to discuss the
role of an auditor, the challenges, and the benefits that can be gained. The role of an
auditor is to provide the organization with an unbiased, research-driven view of their
organization. According Clair Badaracco, “the auditor must first of all be accepted, must
have credibility in order to function. That credibility comes from objectivity, the ability
to be perceived as making a clear statement” (28). Julie Coffman1 says that one role of an
auditor is to identify possible levels of practice. In order to improve strategic
communication the organization and audit team should know the current climate in
regards to communication. According to Coffman there are five levels that an
organization may fit in:
Ad Hoc- unassigned, uncoordinated, and has no resources
Planned- deliberated/managed, resources allocated, responsibility assigned
Institutionalized- regularly performed, “best” practices, coordinated
Evaluated- performance measured, progress tracked, practice predictable
Optimized- regular reflection, continued improvement
Furthermore, it is imperative that the auditor understands the audience to whom
organization delivers their messages. This affects how the auditor judges the messages
1 Information taken from Strategic Communication Audit, a paper prepared by Julia Coffman for the Communications Consortium Media Center in October 2004.
2
Gardner
that are currently being sent, the techniques that should be used to change these
messages, and what objectives the organization will benefit from. (Strenski).
Benefits
The benefits of a communication audit are wide-spreading and usually show in
the long-term. Specific benefits include:
building support for a change initiative
demonstrating a commitment to improving communication, receiving
practical recommendations for improving communication
enabling programs to be scrutinized in order to eliminate wasteful
spending
saving cost and effort by minimizing or eliminating programs that do not
add value or strength (Basili)
The ambiguity of organizational communications makes it difficult for non-
communication professionals to evaluate their own programs and create the necessary
plans to deliver change.
Challenges
There are several challenges that must be addressed before any benefits can be
gained. The first hurdle is to have the full cooperation and support of senior management
(Strenski 1). Without this a communication audit will be less inclusive, take longer to
complete and employees are less likely to take it seriously. Many employees may be
afraid of the change that a communication audit could bring. The term “audit” has a
negative connotation to it and employees may need to be reassured of its purpose.
Assessment is a word that could be used as a replacement (Hollingworth).
3
Gardner
Surveys
The survey is the most vague method in the audit. Surveys are meant to introduce
the subject (Hollingworth) and gather a wide variety of information, allowing the auditor
to determine which subjects and issues he should seek more information on. The first
step in conducting surveys is to choose the sample. This can be difficult since the sample
probably will not be completely indicative of the group. Several methods can be used to
improve the validity of the sample. In the case of a communication audit the best method
is random sampling. If the auditor were to use the method of biased sample framing,
there would be a greater risk for misinformation and picking a sample that is not truly
representative (Frey et. al 186). The survey should also incorporate a cross-sectional
design. This design “describes the current characteristics of a sample that represents a
population at one point in time” (Frey et. al 188). A communication audit aims to capture
a snapshot of the current communication situation within an organization, not the past or
the future. When constructing a survey both the types of questions asked and they way
they are worded have to be taken into consideration. The method of using double-
barreled questions, asking several questions at once, should be avoided because of the
vague nature of surveys. The survey questions should be worded in a neutral manner to
avoid unintentionally swaying the opinion of the participant. This helps to maintain the
validity of the survey.
Questionnaires
After the surveys have been completed and analyzed the auditor can then create a
questionnaire. There are two strategic ways that questions can be written. Open-ended
questions allow respondents to be more open with their answers. This way of non-
4
Gardner
directive questioning may allow the respondent to express themselves and their ideas
freely. Close-ended questions are more directive in their nature and are typically “yes” or
“no” questions or multiple choice. The way to decide between these two types of
questions depends on the situation. Close-ended questions are quick and easy, potentially
cutting down non-responses. Open-ended questions have a couple advantages. They
reduce the likelihood of words being put into the respondent’s mouth and researchers
may learn something that they had not anticipated (Ruane 132). Putting together the
questionnaire should be strategic. One of the most important aspects of a questionnaire is
the flow. Questions can be grouped in several ways including time order and topic. It is
also important that the auditor be aware that the order of questions, as to avoid
influencing how they are answered (Ruane 136). One way of answering close-ended
questions is to use scales. The Likert scale identifies “the extent of a person’s feelings or
attitudes toward another person, event, or phenomenon” (Frey et al. 103). This is a five
point scale raging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Some critics oppose the use
of this scale. According to Sue Dewine and Anita C. James, it “reduces the usefulness of
the information for the client. (Scholars have argued that) the ordinal scale restricts the
opportunity to measure the finer changes in an organization’s communication pattern”
(DeWine & James 147). Another example is the semantic differential scale that uses a
word or phrase as the referent and asks that the respondent indicate their feelings by
checking a space, either to the far left, far right, or anywhere in between.
Interviews
The next step in the communication audit process is the interview. In this part of
the audit the questions begin to become more focused but are also more likely to be open-
5
Gardner
ended. The interviewer is typically interested in finding out specific information by
seeking to have an in-depth interview. An in-depth interview is primarily initiating a
conversation, as to elicit more information from the interviewee (Marshall & Rossman
81). Maintaining neutrality in an interview is impossible, says Denzin and Lincoln. The
conversation aspect of the interview “creates the reality of the interview situation” (48).
One problem with interviewing face-to-face is that certain respondents may feel
uncomfortable and respond with normative responses and answer questions in a socially
desirable way (Ruane 155). To avoid this there are rules that the interviewer must follow
including being honest and open, conducting the interview in a comfortable environment,
and most importantly guaranteeing anonymity (Miyomoto). Active listening is one of the
most important skills that an interviewer can have. By utilizing active listening the
interviewer can strategically probe throughout the interview. For example, the
interviewer may stay silent after the interviewee answers in order to prompt them to say
more or ask directive follow-up questions. Also it is the interviewers responsibility to be
clear with instructions and to moderate. One example of this is to provide the interviewee
with feedback on how completely they are answering the questions (Hirsh et al. 132).
Group interviews are an option to save time and money. During a group interview
the questioner can choose to keep the interview structured or unstructured (Denzin &
Lincoln 71). The interviewer would probably want to employ both strategies. An option
that uses both of these would be to use a guide, unstructured tools that list the general
topics or issue to be covered in an interview (Ruane 149). This would enable the
interviewer to maintain focus within the group, but also allow the group to speak freely
6
Gardner
and perhaps divulge more information. According to Ruane, the focus group (group
interview) produces social interaction that is both dynamic and insightful (157).
In interviewing, the auditor is looking for qualitative data instead of statistical
information. Data analysis is the process of “moving from raw interviews to evidence-
based interpretations that are the foundation for published reports” (Rubin & Rubin 203).
Ideas, expressions, and opinions are the types of data that are going to make the interview
useful. There are several methods for analyzing this kind of data, which include sorting
and ranking, sorting and comparing, weighting and combining, as well as checking and
modifying (Rubin & Rubin 229). After organizing the data, the results of the interview
can work towards what is called middle-level theory by “asking how far the principles
and processes (you have) discovered in (your) research might extend” (Rubin & Rubin
230).
Observations
Observation typically follows the interviewing process. Observing is extremely
useful to auditors, making it unfortunate that it is one of the most difficult ways to obtain
research. A situation where the organizational climate is complicated may entail more
time and be more difficult to code. Complicated social dynamics within an organization
may challenge the validity of the data gained. Maintaining a high level of validity is
difficult in observation. Another possible problem is the Hawthorne effect. This can
occur if participants are sensitive to being watched and may cause of them to act
differently than they normally would (Frey et al. 127). This is partially caused by the
need for privacy as noted in my previous paper on research techniques.2 To avoid these
2 Exploring Research Techniques: Surveys, Questionnaires, Interviews, Observation and Comparison, October 6, 2008.
7
Gardner
problems the observer can concentrate on text, also known as indirect observation.
Researchers examine newsletters, company training videos, speeches, or meeting minutes
(Frey et al. 114). This eliminates the chance of affecting the actions of those observed
with the researchers presence. Videotaping and audiotaping are also ways to reduce the
Hawthorne effect, if the participants can forget they are being taped.
Before beginning observation, the auditor will need to decide on the focus of their
observation. What types of interactions are they looking for? This is the best way to
develop a coding scheme. A coding scheme is a classification system that is used to
decipher observations. An example of this would be if the auditor wanted to observe a
meeting. The auditor could be looking for codes like verbal cues and nonverbal indicators
(smiling, frowning, etc.). This would allow the observer to count the number of cues and
produce quantitative data (Frey et al. 116).
Comparison
Comparing organizations is a useful way to determine which methods are the
most valuable for specific situations. Financial institutions are probably not going to have
same problems that hospitals or universities have. By comparing like organizations the
auditor is able to find like solutions. One example of this is the audits of two school
districts, the Chesterfield County Public School District3 and the Lewis-Palmer School
District4. Though the formats of the audits are very different, it is easy to see that both
school districts have similar problems. Briefly, here is a list of weaknesses that the audit
exposes for both districts:
trouble keeping up with rapid growth of the community
3 http://www.chesterfield.k12.va.us/CCPS/news/files/Communication%20Audit.pdf4 http://lewispalmer.org/media/EDocs/LPSD_Communications_Audit_Report_052307.pdf
8
Gardner
lack of strategic communication
general negative view of the school board from parents
poor reviews of the district websites
poor media relationships
The auditors for both school districts use similar methods. These include focus
groups, interviews, analyzing supplements, and commenting on meeting protocol. Both
audits concentrate on parents and as well as others in the community. Another similarity
is the recommendations that are given. Key recommendations include rebuilding trust,
listening to feedback from external sources, provide more training for employees in
regard to communication, multiple improvements to text sources, and to clarify and
define roles.
While the two audits have similarities, they also have differences that each could
learn from. The Lewis-Palmer School District is provided with a strong list of public
perceptions. The auditors also provide an extensive explanation of data that the focus
group participants provided and how those views can affect the school district. The audit
also includes a section labeled “Now What”. This section provides the school district
with detailed and realistic implementation methods for their recommendations. The plan
is listed in phases and includes an ideal timeline. The Chesterfield Public School District
audit also contains strong aspects. The auditors in this situation explain in detail how the
communication goals of the district are directly linked with the overall goals and
objectives. This explanation is vital in explaining to those who are not communication
professionals why certain recommendations are made. The audit also provides a detailed
explanation of how the district can re-brand itself. They suggest designing a name logo,
9
Gardner
adopting a new slogan, and developing a stylebook for all publications to maintain
consistency. The two audits provide in-depth insights to both school districts and provide
useful recommendations. By comparing the two side-by-side it is clear that each have
their strengths that the other could learn from.
Qualitative Measurement
Qualitative research is an integral part of the communication audit. Denzin and
Lincoln define qualitative research as “a situated activity that locates the observer in the
world” (4). This definition is generic and lacks the visual that it takes to grasp the idea of
qualitative research. The best way to describe this type of research is to consider what it
measures. It measures thoughts, opinions, and perceptions. There are three challenges
that this types of research faces: (1) developing a conceptual framework for the study that
is thorough, concise, and elegant; (2) to plan a design that is systematic and manageable
yet flexible; and (3) to integrate these into a coherent document that convinces the
proposal reader—a funding agency or dissertation committee—that they study should be
done, can be done, and will be done. (Marshall and Rossman 6). Creating guidelines is
extremely difficult in this type of research since the nature of it is based on
communication, and communication is constantly evolving. The most common
perception of research it has to always be uniform in how it is conducted. Qualitative
research, on the other hand, attempts to combine thoroughness and logic with fluidness
and flexibility. To understand how the different types of research are related, consider
that quantitative research provides the numerical evidence to support the statements made
by qualitative data (Holland & Gill). For example, a researcher organizes a focus group
of fifty employees and gathers from their statements that they are generally unhappy. To
10
Gardner
provide numerical support for this statement the researcher gives the same employees a
survey using the Likert scale. The average outcome of the survey will probably be low,
thus providing hard data that describes the opinions of the survey.
Quantitative Measurement
The other type of measurement is known as quantitative research. This type of
measurement focuses on numerical value. One example of formatting this data is through
a frequency table. For example, an auditor may have observed a conversation and
counted how many times each participant interrupted someone. Using status (supervisor,
subordinate, etc.) the auditor could formulate a percentage of who interrupts more and
how often they do it compared to the other group. Using this quantitative data the auditor
may theorize that supervisors consistently interrupt twice as much as their subordinates.
Quantitative measurements cannot be taken during certain phases of the audit because
variables can be changed. An example of this is interviewing. Poorly worded questions,
inadequacy in judging responses, and not knowing the proper time to probe further can
lead to ambiguity. For instance, depending on the skills of the interviewer, the answers
may be different (Hirsh et al. 129). It is important to note that errors should be expected
in this type of research. Every measurement will contain two components, true score and
error score. The true score component is measured over time, while the error score is the
score from the one-time interview or survey. The average of multiple error scores would
be more accurate (Frey et al. 120).
Recommendations
After all the research has been completed and the data has been analyzed then
recommendations can be made. To ensure that these recommendations can be properly
11
Gardner
executed its important to provide the organization with implementation methods. Before
making suggestions to the client several questions have to be taken into consideration.
Sue DeWine and Anita C. James address these issues by working through a process
called POMRIE. This acronym stands for problem, objective, method, reality,
implementation, and evaluation. The first four steps are meant to evaluate the audit
before it reaches the organization.
First, the problem needs to be pinpointed and put into a statement that the client
can understand. For example, similar problems can be grouped together, preventing the
client from being overwhelmed with too much information. The audit group should also
“use data to demonstrate how the problems are occurring in the present, and not
concentrate on their future impact” (Coffman).
The objective should also be phrased specifically for the client. This statement
provides the organization with goals they should aim to meet. For example, the audit for
the Lewis-Palmer School District lead to many recommended objectives. They include:
simplify the homepage, make the website friendlier and warmer, make navigation bar
headings clear and succinct, and connect with non-parents. These basic objectives
directly relate to the problems within the organization.
The implementation method is the action the organization can take to achieve
their objectives. Giving the client multiple methods is the best choice. One objective that
a communication audit team recommends to the Chesterfield Public School District is to
consider publishing their newsletter every other week. The audit explains that in the focus
groups that they conducted they learned that participants wanted fresh news and enjoyed
seeing their colleges highlighted. Another suggestion was to put the newsletter online. By
12
Gardner
making this change more information could be linked, thus providing more material
without crowding the newsletter.
Reality also has to be considered. The communication audit team should be in
touch with the special needs and abilities of the organization. Providing the organization
with unrealistic goals and methods of implementation will prevent any recommendations
from being used. Using the example of Chesterfield Public Schools again, auditors
recommended that school administrators visit the schools more often. This is a
recommendation that is realistic and does not take any drastic steps to accomplish.
Finally, lack of follow-up is a major criticism but it is vital to the continued
success of the audit. Providing the organization with tools to assess itself is necessary for
continued progress. The best way to evaluate the effect of the communication plan is to
repeat the audit after changes have been implemented. One example is to examine
employee satisfaction scores. One method of doing this is to have the same sample size of
employees complete an identical satisfaction survey. The communication audit had the
desired effect if the correlation is positive (Hargie et al. 423). The time frame to repeat
the audit depends on the opinion of the auditor. Julie Coffman believes that they should
be done within five years. James B. Strenski on the other hand recommends an evaluation
after eighteen months. While a follow-up audit is the most useful evaluation technique, it
is important to leave the organization with its own evaluation tools.
Increasing the Effectiveness of Communication Audits
The effectiveness of a communication audit is heavily reliant on the skill of the
auditor but organizations are also responsible for their own success. In addition to
cooperating with the process, there are several steps that an organization can take to
13
Gardner
maximize the effectiveness of an audit. According to Holland and Gill, who both
specialize in communication strategies, the most common reasons that organizations
reject the idea of seek consultation on strategic communications is lack of time, money,
and know how (20). Communication audits should be considered a way to save money in
the long run. James B. Strenski estimates the cost of an audit to be around $10,000 to
$13,000. One way that an organization can test its own communication climate is to add
questions on to employee attitude surveys. By adding on the right questions an
organization can peak into the “knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors as they relate to
business goals” (Holland & Gill 21). Another way of over coming cost is to plan ahead. If
someone within the organization already has a head start and can measure small aspects,
then costs can be cut back considerably due to the cut in time. Since communication
audits are considered consultants when they enter an organization it is important to have a
good idea what kind of expertise to look for. To save money on consultants it is
important to follow four pieces of advice: provide the consultant with as much
information on the company as possible, have a basic understanding of the techniques
that the consultants will use, have clear expectations of the consultant, and do not hide
anything. The best way to ruin an audit is to give false information. (Holland & Gill 22).
Following this advice is a smarter way to approach a communication audit, by saving
money and time in combination with the right research, communication audits are easier
to afford and more useful.
14
Gardner
Bibliography
Badaracco, C. (1988). The Politic of Communication Audits. Public Relations Quarterly,
33(3).
Basili, Francois “Communication Ideas." HumaNext. 2007.
<http://www.communicationideas.com/communication-audit.html>.
15
Gardner
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. S. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand
Oaks: Sage, 2003.
DeWine, Sue & James, Anita C. (1988). Examining the Communication Audit:
Assessment an Modifiction. Management Communication Quarterly, 2(144).
Retrieved November 4, 2008 from Emerson Library Database.
Frey, L., Botan, C, Friedman, P & Kreps, G. Investigating Communication: An
Introduction to Research Methods. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991.
Gummesson, Evert. Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Newbury Park: Sage,
1991.
Hargie, O., Tourish, D. & Wilson, N. (2006). Communication Audits and the Effects of
Increased Automation: A Follow-up Study. Journal of Business Communication
39(4).
Holland, Robert J., Gill, Katrina. (2006). Managing Measurement Costs. Communication
World, 23(1). Retrieved November 4, 2008 from Emerson Library Database.
Hollingworth, Ted. Class Lecture. Organizational Communication: Theory and
Application. Emerson College, Boston, MA. 29 Sept 2008.
Hirsch, P., Miller, P., & Kline, F. Strategies for Communication Research. Beverly Hills:
Sage, 1977.
Mason, Jennifer. Qualitative Researching. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996.
Marshall, Catherine & Rossman, Gretchen. Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand
Oaks: Sage, 1995.
Merton, Robert K., Fiske, Marjorie, & Kendall, Patricia L. The Focused Interview: A
Manuel of Problems and Procedures. New York: The Free Press, 1990.
16
Gardner
Miyomoto, Craig. (1999). Communication Audits. Public Relations Strategies. 3(1).
Retrieved November 4, 2008 from Emerson Library Database.Rubin, Herbert &
Rubin, Irene. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks:
Sage, 2005.
Strenski, J. B. (1984). The Communications Audit—Basic to Business Development.
Public Relations Quarterly 29(1). Retrieved November 4, 2008 from Emerson
Library Database.
Strenski, J. B. (1984). The Communications Audit: PR Measurement Tool. Public
Relations Quarterly 30(4). Retrieved November 4, 2008 from Emerson Library
Database
Ruane, J. Essentials of Research Methods: A Guide to Social Science Research. Oxford:
Blackwell, 2005.
17