Effective Strategic Communication: Getting A Seat at The Table
By Arthur-Martins Aginam, PhD
In the past few weeks, this column has tried to explore the concept of Strategic Communication in its complexity. In the course of doing that, a few things have emerged. First is that Strategic Communication as a relatively emerging field is still largely ambiguous both as a concept and in practice; such that even seasoned professionals still struggle to distinguish it from other fields of marketing communication, particularly Public Relations. As all new fields, it is defining itself in practice.
The second thing that has emerged is that Strategic Communication is expansive in scope and encompasses almost every traditional field of marketing communication and more. These include the foundational discipline of Marketing, Public Relations, Advertising, Political Communication, Social Marketing, Behavioural Change Communication, among others. Consequently, Strategic Communication is integrative; a medley of hitherto distinct marketing communication fields pertinent to today’s digital world where traditional media walls have collapsed and disciplinary boundaries increasingly blurred. It is perhaps this cross-disciplinary appeal that has increasingly led Universities across the world, particularly in the U.S. to replace Advertising and Public Relations courses with Strategic Communication in an effort to integrate the common strategies of both disciplines to enhance their complementarity. It is expected that students will emerge from such interdisciplinary programs armed with comprehensive skills and knowledge required for the communication challenges of the 21st century.
Third, Strategic Communication thinks primarily in the medium to long term. As a noun, Strategy speaks to a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall goal. Similarly, the adjective- Strategic refers to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them. With roots in military warfare, Strategy as a concept has since evolved such that in today’s world, every type of organization is required to constantly engage in strategic thinking and planning in order to succeed. Stephen J. Bigelow and Mary K. Pratt, define Strategic planning as a process in which an organization’s leaders define their vision for the future and identify their organization’s goals and objectives; a process that includes establishing the sequence in which those goals should be realized so that the organization can reach its stated mission. Strategy is basically a roadmap; a plan of action designed to achieve medium to long term goals.
Inextricably tied to Strategy is Tactics- the nuts and bolts of implementing the strategy, which often involves concrete initiatives with smaller time frames to realize the overarching vision. In military terms, (returning to the roots of the concept), if Strategy is about winning the War, Tactics speaks to the tools needed to win the various battles that will inevitably lead to winning the war (i.e. realizing the overarching mandate and objectives of an organization).
In this regard, Strategy must address in a robust and holistic way the overarching mandate, vision and objectives of the organization first at the macro level, which the specific projects and initiatives reinforce at the micro, implementable (practical) levels. Thus, Strategy and Tactics are both intensely complimentary and mutually reinforcing such that one cannot exist without the other. Indeed, without Strategy, there can be no Tactics and without Tactics, Strategy, no matter how well articulated, remains only an idea.
From the foregoing, it is evident that communication is central to the success of any strategic plan(s), especially with respect to identifying and effectively engaging the target audiences and stakeholders (internal and external) of an organization. Therefore, a major concern of Strategic Communication is the extent to which professional communicators within organizations are a part of strategy formulation; having a seat at the table so to speak. Involvement of professional communicators in strategy formulations ensures that the core mandate(s) of the organization are embedded in the Communication Plan(s) from the very beginning; such that they are able to identify in the medium to long term potential strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats (SWOT) which enables them to be a step or two ahead of inevitable contingencies. Simply, embedding the communication team in the strategy process engenders a proactive rather than reactive (firefighting) approach as it allows the team opportunity to develop comprehensive plans for various aspects of the strategy, even as they are being developed, along with metrics to evaluate them.
Unfortunately, all too often, in many organizations, the communication team is sidelined from these fundamental strategic processes; only to be remembered in moments of crises to firefight. Deliberate proactive Public Relations, any day, is more effective and result-oriented than the reactive, firefighting approach. As I often say, firefighters barely salvage much from a burning building; just as hitchhikers may get to their destinations, but never on their own terms.
It is well known that Executive Managements who appreciate the importance of communication usually enjoy better positive publicity with their organizations’ stakeholders and the public at large. Such a management is a boon to the PR department who are not only armed with the resources to do their work, but also feel motivated to go beyond the normal call of duty in discharging their responsibilities.
The value of effective communication is such that even the modest accomplishments of an organization are amplified to make them look much more than they actually are. Conversely, organizations lacking robust communication structures may actually accomplish more, but get barely noticed. As Public Relations practitioners, we know that nothing is as frustrating to Management as their achievements not gaining traction with the public and it is the Communication team that bears the brunt of such frustration, even if Management unwittingly set it up to fail. Unfortunately, in organizations like this, Public Relations becomes something of a thankless job.
Regardless, it is a fundamental responsibility of the communication team to convince Management of the immense value it can add to the organization. This it can do by engaging the CEO and getting him to understand that the communication team is actually working to enhance her profile which inevitably rubs off on the organization. A little massaging of ego may be necessary, so long it brings about results.
In this regard, the communication team can also use whatever limited resources available to it to conduct small pilot projects, with clearly measurable outcomes, to convince a reluctant Management of its capacity to positively transform the image of the organization.
In the end, it is the CEO, along with the organization, who benefit most from the resourcefulness of the communication team. A good example is the case of the late Prof. Dora Akunyili, one of the most celebrated public officers in Nigeria’s history. Today, who remembers the media and communication team who worked so hard to turn her into an iconic brand that continues to resonate several years after her death?
Recently, I facilitated a Strategic Communication workshop for senior staff of the communication department of a major Federal Government Agency. A key complaint that came up was the marginalization of the communication department which is only remembered in moments of crisis. Interestingly, the agency has not faced any major crises; only hiccups. I asked the participants what efforts they have made as a department to get the agency’s CEO to understand the immense value they can add to the organization, if properly empowered and resourced. The stunning response from a few of the participants was that it is not their job to convince the CEO to do what is right with someone noting that he is a ‘difficult’ person to work for.
I am sure many others will say similar things about their bosses. I then asked if they have tried some informal and indirect channels by using someone who can influence him. The answer again was no. What bothered me most was their unwillingness to even try. For the most part, they were content going through the motions of work because of a CEO that does not appreciate the immense difference they can make in enhancing his profile and that of the organization.
As I made clear to the participants, you don’t simply walk away because you have a somewhat recalcitrant CEO. If that were to be the case, many organizations will either be unproductive or cease to exist. Good Public Relations involves the effective management of human relations both within and outside an organization. In the case where the CEO is either unwilling or does not appreciate the importance of the communication team, efforts must be made to find ways to engage and influence her through a variety of channels- formal and informal. This can be done through formal structures of authority in the organization like board members. The change of attitude can also be achieved through informal channels such as close friends and even spouses, where possible. Such informal channels may not wield authority, but they, in some cases, have immense power and influence.
Let’s take spouses for instance. It is known that spouses of powerful people can often influence their thoughts and decisions. The famous case of Nancy Reagan, arguably the most powerful first lady in America’s history, proves this to the hilt. On an occasion, Mrs Reagan was modest enough to acknowledge that ‘’there is no job description for the first lady and she is only there because her husband got elected President’’. Yet, on another occasion, towards the end of her Reagan’s presidency, when it had become public knowledge that she wielded so much influence on her husband declared- ‘’for 8 years, I was sleeping with the President and if that doesn’t give you special access, I don’t know what does’’.
As the lifeblood of the organization, the communication team should not only have a prominent seat at the decision making table, but also provided the resources to do its work. This will enable it to proactively shape the organization’s outreaches and effectively manage its reputation. How the communication team manages to earn the trust of management is less important, than having the enabling environment to carry out its responsibilities. What however, is unacceptable, is for the team to become apathetic, even despondent due to the internal politics of organizations. On no account should the communication team resign to simply go with the flow. As folks in riverine communities would say- the only thing that goes with the flow is dead fish.
