Doing the right things or doing things right?

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine and analyze the prevailing form of rationality that governs the challenges, goals and roles of communication professionals. The authors will also explore alternative forms of rationality and discuss what these would imply. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on survey results from The European Communication Monitor (ECM) and qualitative interviews with communication managers in Sweden. First, the authors present the ECM data and the Swedish interview material, i.e. the authors depict the practitioners’ perceptions of what they understand as important work tasks and roles. The interviews focus on the actual practices of linking communication goals to business goals. Second, the results are challenged from a reflexive perspective, using theories from the paradox turn and questioning the “taken-for-granted thinking” in corporate communications. Findings – The ECM data show that the main challenge in practice is “linking business strategy and communication.” The Swedish respondents stand out when it comes to “building and maintaining trust” since this is considered to be almost as important. The qualitative interview study strengthens the results in the ECM. The interviewees seem to do their work according to the traditional management agenda – i.e. they break down overall business goals and translate these to measurable communication goals. The results are reflected upon using paradox theory. Two paradoxes are discussed: between managerialism and professionalism, and strategic generalists and operational specialists. Research limitations/implications – The study is based on survey data that have been collected through a convenience sample, and the interview study is a pilot study. Practical implications – The paper focuses conflicts between normative practitioner ideals and reality, and helps practitioners to reflect upon mainstream thinking. Originality/value – Based on the empirical findings in the ECM, the interviews and the theoretical framework, the authors conclude that if the idea of The Communicative Organization is to be fruitfully realized, it is necessary to depart from a multi-dimensional rationality and question ideas that are taken for granted. The use of paradox theory and concepts such as functional stupidity is rather original in corporate communication research. Additional research could further explore paradoxes in order to spark dialogue, which may undermine one-dimensional thinking and functional stupidity.

Challenges in the collaboration between researchers and in-house communication professionals in the digital media landscape

“…The studied groups viewed mutual, evolving roles in incompatible ways, reflecting the study by Falkheimer et al [2016]. For example, as a prerequisite for participation, the monitoring of issue arenas online [Vos, Schoemaker and Luoma-aho, 2014] seems to be left unmanned.…”

“…Another change influencing mutual relationships is the evolution of the roles of communication professionals due to the changing media environment. Although communication professionals have evolved, it may be that other functions or professions in the organizations are not fully aware of their old or new roles, which may create unclarity [Falkheimer et al, 2016].…”

“…Most of the communication professionals felt that their occupation was changing, and many had started to support and coach the researchers in conducting the communication they used to do themselves, as scholars have suggested [Falkheimer et al, 2016;Madsen and Verhoeven, 2019;Trench, 2017]. Some of the communication professionals noted that researchers need to feel comfortable enough to ask for help with practical entrance barriers, developing their new media persona, and getting started in social media, which may be embarrassing to those who are known for being proficient in their fields.…”

“…A smaller number of professionals observed the need to re-justify the organizational communication units, describing their former ways as organization centricity [Macnamara and Zerfass, 2012]. They thought that working closer to the researchers and their projects' communication efforts could also help the communication units to increase the value of science communication and avoid being perceived as a diluted part of the organization as Falkheimer et al [2016] forewarned:…”

“…An even more substantial contribution is needed when we talk about science communication and not just basic editing. (Researcher 24, economics) Some of the communication professionals experienced a need to change and variegate their roles as Falkheimer et al [2016] suggested. However, for many of the professionals, increasing expectations to master new roles create exhaustion, and coherent views may get lost between team members or organizational sectors.…”