The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-254X.htm
JCOM
18,1
58
Received 31 March 2013
Revised 14 August 2013
Accepted 19 September 2013
Journal of Communication
Management
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2014
pp. 58-79
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1363-254X
DOI 10.1108/JCOM-03-2013-0028
How others see us: leaders’
perceptions of communication
and communication managers
Peggy Simcic Brønn
Norwegian Business School, Communication, Culture and Languages,
Oslo, Norway
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to assess other leaders’ perceptions of the importance and contribution of
communication to organizational success and the abilities of their communication executives to
contribute to strategic decision making.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative approach was used through a questionnaire sent
to 5,000 business leaders in small, medium, and large firms across the country of Norway.
Findings – Overall results indicate that communication is viewed as not as important to business
success as other management disciplines, but leaders rate communication skills as the most important
communication discipline. In general, communication executives must improve their strategic
orientation if they are to be engaged in decision processes where more than communication is
discussed. There is moderate but significant correlation between strategic orientation and involvement
in decision making and being invited to the strategic planning process.
Research limitations/implications – This research was performed in a small country with all the
limitations that creates; only a small percentage of the respondents had a unique communication
department or head of communication, although there is some evidence this is not unusual. There also
might be issues with definitions of terms such as public relations and corporate communication; while
they are familiar to communication professionals, they are not so well understood by others.
Practical implications – Hopefully this study will give a greater understanding of the view of
communication in organizations and its contribution to organizational success.
Originality/value – This study appears to be one of the first to ask other leaders opinions on
communication and communication executives’ role in organizations. Most studies have asked
communication executives their opinions on how their leaders view them.
Keywords Competences, Strategic management, Communication management,
Corporate communications
Paper type Research paper
In 2001, an article in Journal of Communication Management asked the question if
communication managers in Norway could pass the strategist test (Brønn, 2001). Did
they have what it takes to be accepted on the top management team as a full blown
member with all the rights and responsibilities that came with the job? The conclusion
was that while the communication managers knew what they should be doing to make
the grade, they were not quite there. The strategic role of public relations (PR),
communication and communication executives is still an ongoing theme within the
field of communication. Even today, 20 years after the publication of the ground
breaking excellence study, many researchers still lament the fact that PR/
communication managers are not part of the dominant coalition, that they are not
empowered as decision makers at the strategic level and in general are not seen as key
players in the success of the organization.
Recently, there has been resurgence in interest of the strategic role of
communication under the guise of institutionalization of strategic communication.
This interest can be traced to Grunig’s (2006) statement that learning how to Leaders’
institutionalize PR is one of the greatest challenges for scholars within the field today. perceptions of
Institutionalization was the theme of the Euprera conference in 2008 in Milano, which
cited the rapidly evolving and expanding influence of PR and corporate communication
communication (CC) as initiating the institutionalization of the professional practice.
Conference organizers called on practitioners and academics to analyze the operational,
managerial, and strategic components of stakeholder management and 59
communication. In 2009, a special edition of the International Journal of Strategic
Communication was dedicated to strategic communication and institutional theory.
According to the editor the objective was to provide a means to uncover how rooted
strategic communication is in the heart of organizations (Zerfass, 2009).
A subsequent Euprera research project “Beyond Institutionalization” refers to
evidence that PR or CC is already, or is in the process of being institutionalized in large
organizations in Europe and other countries. As confirmation of this, several studies
were cited including 2008 general accepted practices (GAP) findings that
communication executives are reporting directly to the CEO (Swerling and Sen,
2009), the European Communication Monitor that 75 percent of PR practitioners are
taken seriously by senior management (Zerfass, 2008), a study of institutionalization of
PR/CC in Italy that found that the PR/CC manager is a leading executive in 78 percent
of the largest firms (Invernizzi and Romenti, 2009), and a study of the most admired
companies in the UK that found that 64 percent of chief communication officers answer
directly to the CEO (Gregory, 2008).
All of the studies mentioned above have in common that they ask the opinions
of communication practitioners. As also noted by Frandsen and Johansen (2011),
they tend to be defensive in nature, in that they address a need to legitimize PR
within organizations. Further, how practitioners work with strategy, management,
and leadership is not so clear in the studies. The need to evaluate other senior
management’s perceptions of communication and the communication professional’s
role was thus a proposition that emerged from the institutionalization research project.
A second proposition was to find out the extent to which recommendations about
communication and reputation are factored into decision making.
This paper takes up this challenge by looking at how top leaders from the private
sector in Norway view the communication function and their communication directors.
Four major research questions are addressed:

RQ1. How do senior managers view the importance of communication and reputation?

RQ2. How do senior managers view their communication executives’ involvement

in the organization’s strategic decision-making processes?

RQ3. Do senior managers view the communication executives as competent to

engage in the organization’s strategic decision-making processes?

RQ4. What influence do senior managers believe the communication function and
its leader have on decision making and development of strategies?

Literature review
In recent years there has been a renewed interest in the role of PR/CC in organizations.
It has surfaced under the guise of studying the institutionalization of PR and
JCOM communications, and has been attributed to the statement by James Grunig (2006,
18,1 p. 151), that “the greatest challenge for scholars now is to learn how to institutionalize
strategic public relations as an ongoing, accepted practice in most organizations.”
Institutionalization according to Zucker (1987) contains two defining elements:
“(a) a rule-like, social fact quality of an organized pattern of action (exterior), and
(b) an embedding in formal structures, such as formal aspects of organizations that are
60 not tied to particular actors or situations (nonpersonal/objective).” Institutionalization
is thus “a long-term process of infusing rule-like values and procedures into
organizations, industries, or societies so that they endure, regardless of particular
situations or individual philosophies of main actors” (p. 444). Goodman and Dean
(1982) define an institutionalized act as a behavior that is performed by two or more
individuals, persists over time, and exists as a part of the daily functioning of the
organization. Further, institutionalized acts should be independent of individuals; they
should be something that are inherent in the organization.
Institutionalization of strategic communication is understood as a process
where strategic communication becomes an “integral and self evident part of the
strategic management of an organization” (Tench et al., 2009, p. 151). These
authors note that this view coincides with Warren et al. (1974) view of
institutionalization from organizational sociology, where it has become known
as an “institutionalized thought structure: a complex of shared norms and beliefs
within the organization” (p. 151).
Tench et al. (2009). make the case that this view of institutionalization is also the
basis for defining strategic communication as reflective communication management,
which allows for research on the “collective patterns of communication professionals”
(p. 152). The reflective role of communication as defined by van Ruler et al. (2004) from
the 2000 Delphi study is:
Reflective: analyzing changing values, norms and beliefs in society and discussing them with
members of the organization so they can adjust the values, norms and beliefs within
organizations – aimed at development of the organization’s mission and strategies.
Grunig (2006) believes that in practice PR has been institutionalized as the more
negative-viewed buffering activity (an activity used to protect organizations) and not
a bridging activity, an activity used to build relationships with stakeholders. Bridging
is considered the more strategically oriented practice as it focusses on the participation
of PR executives in strategic decision making so they can help manage the behavior
of organizations. This strategic communication approach comprises focussed and
coordinated processes and efforts designed to understand and engage key audiences in
order to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable to advance organizational
interests and objectives. This includes making sure management is aware of and open
to stakeholder interests.
Perceived participation in strategic decision making is important because where the
PR function is placed in the organization and to whom the PR manager answers are
factors in their participation in decision making (Grunig, 1992). Research has found
that in some structures PR departments would lack power if they were not placed at
the top of the hierarchy. MacMillan (1991) concluded that perceived importance of
public affairs managers by top management is dependent on, among other things, the
seniority of the head of public affairs and the ease, frequency, and regularity of access
to the chief executive. PR managers who are placed centrally with direct reporting lines
to the CEO are more likely to participate in decisions. Tushman and Scanlan (1981) also
found that formal status within an organization facilitates boundary spanning, or Leaders’
bridging, the more strategic-oriented aspect of PR practice. perceptions of
Individuals who are involved with top managers regularly in decision making,
who are brought into the process early and who bring a broad range of expertise communication
to the planning process can be viewed as working more strategically. Similarly,
managers who are involved with a large number of strategic decision activities
are deemed to be operating in a more strategic manner. It is also argued that acceptance 61
of managers by the organization’s dominant coalition is conditional based on the
members of the leadership team’s perception of a manager’s strategic perspective, in
other words the perception of competencies brought to the table by managers
(Ashmos et al., 1998).

Measuring institutionalization of PR/strategic communication

Institutionalization of communication occurs when desired behavior is performed by
multiple individuals, persists in time, and exists as a social fact, independent of any
individual. It is a process where communication becomes an integral and self-evident
part of the strategic management of an organization (Tench et al., 2009). It is measured
by, among other things, the extent to which strategic communication recommendations
are taken seriously by senior management and the extent to which these
recommendations and reputational considerations are factored into strategic decision
making and planning in the organization.
Various instruments purport to measure institutionalization of strategic
communication. One study is the University of Southern California Annenberg
study of GAP (referred to as USC GAP study). This survey is designed to assess the
degree of institutionalization of the communication function in the USA. Four basic
areas are covered based on research that indicates institutionalization of PR leads to:
optimization of the function’s reporting structures; enhancement of management’s
perceptions of the function; increased integration with other functions; and
the establishment of measures that demonstrate the value of the function to the
organization as a whole (Swerling and Sen, 2009). The sample for the USC GAP study
are communication professionals working in a variety of organizations across the USA.
These include non-profit organizations, governmental agencies, and public and private
companies. The respondents are asked to rate their organizations on a variety of
questions that apply to the four primary areas mentioned above. According to
Swerling and Sen (2009), the GAP study results from 2007 indicate that the
communication function has been institutionalized “to an extraordinary degree in a
fairly short period of time” (p. 143), but that more work needs to be done.
A second study professing to measure institutionalization of communication is the
European Communication Monitor. This survey was first published in 2007 and
has been carried out annually since then. According to Tench et al. (2009), it is an
“extended quantitative research project aimed to achieve the following objectives: (a) to
monitor trends in communication management; (b) to analyze the changing framework
for the profession driven by European integration, and (c) to evaluate specific topics
such as influence on management decisions; interactive channels and online videos;
corporate social responsibility (CSR); evaluation and communication controlling; and
intercultural communication” (p. 149). Cited as one of the most comprehensive studies
of its kind in Europe, the study uses a sample of more than 20,000 communication
professionals in more than 30 countries throughout Europe working in a cross-section
of organizations, including agencies.
JCOM A third study is the Corporate Communication International (CCI) Corporate
18,1 Communication Practices and Trends Study. This study is a bi-annual survey carried
out by the CCI located at Baruch College, City University New York. First carried out in
2,000, the study outlines and analyzes the state of the art for CC in publicly traded,
multinational companies. The survey consists of 27 questions and is mailed to
communication executives in the Fortune 1,000 firms. The survey instrument is
62 followed up with interviews of selected executives. Although the study does not
purport to evaluate institutionalization specifically, the 2009 study report does state
that it “confirms corporate communication as a strategic management function” (CCI
web page). Furthermore, some of the questions are not unlike those in the European
Communication Monitor and the USC GAP study, including: budgets, ranking of
responsibilities, reputation, engagement in decision making, responsibilities of CC
office, and reporting lines. The CCI Corporate Communication Practices and Trends
Study has been applied in South Africa, China, Denmark, and Norway.
The three instruments recognize the need to map the perceptions of management/
leaders. However, they do not do this; they all ask communication directors their
perceptions of how management perceives them. While not unusual, it calls into question
the authority of the results of the surveys to make conclusions about institutionalization.
As Argyris and Schön (1974) might assert, the difference between theory in use and
espoused theory is often wishful thinking. People have a tendency to answer a question
to reflect normative theory, when in fact actual practice does not reflect this. To study
perceptions of organizations’ leaders you must ask them. There must be evidence of real
contribution to decision making and planning, not an individual’s perception that they
are involved and contribute. Further, asking leaders about institutionalization is critical.
Wakefield (2008) quotes Fleck (2007), who contends it is leaders who define mission and
purpose of organizations and who create and preserve values.
Much of the research in this area is also done from the perspective of communication
professionals in large firms, see particularly CCI. This focus possibly misrepresents the
actual practice of strategic communication by most organizations. There is a need to
evaluate senior management’s perceptions of the role and to study the extent to which
strategic communication is understood and practiced in all types of organizations.
The research presented here sheds further light on the institutionalization issue by
examining other leaders’ perceptions of their communication departments and their
communication directors.

Methods
This study does not test any a priori hypotheses as the research is exploratory in
nature. Combining elements from the European Communication Monitor, CCI’s
Corporate Communication Trends, and the USC GAP study, the research set out to
answer four questions:

RQ1. How do senior managers view the importance of communication and

reputation?

RQ2. How do senior managers view their communication executives’ involvement

in the organization’s strategic decision-making processes?

RQ3. Do senior managers view the communication executives as competent to

engage the organization’s strategic decision-making processes?
 RQ4. What influence do senior managers believe the communication function and Leaders’
its leader has on decision making and development of strategies? perceptions of
All data were analyzed use the SPSS statistical package and significance value was set communication
at po0.05 for all analyses.

Data collection and sample 63

The research is based on data collected from private sector organizations using an e-mail
survey consisting of 30 questions sent by the marketing research company Perduco to
their representative web panel of leaders in 5,000 small, medium, and large firms from
across the country of Norway. Data collection were done using Confirmit during the
months of March and April 2009, and 1,343 usable answers were received, representing a
response rate of 27 percent. Of the firms participating in the study approximately
85 percent are privately owned non-exchange listed firms. Approximately two-thirds of
the firms had less than 19 employees; more than 40 percent had fewer than nine
employees. This is consistent with Norwegian statistics that show that 75 percent of all
firms in Norway have 20 or fewer employees.However, 12 percent of the respondents had
100 or more employees. The responding firms were evenly spread across the country,
gross income ranged from several hundred thousand crowns per year to well over ten
billions per year. The following industries were represented (Table I).
Consistent with the large percentage of small firms, the data revealed that only 22
percent of the surveyed firms (ca. 292 firms) had a distinct PR or communication
department, or employee who is dedicated to PR or communication work. The majority
of these respondents were privately held firms with more than 20 employees. Nearly one-
half of the firms with more than 100 employees did not have a communication function
or a dedicated person handling communication. In general the departments were more
likely to be at one location and 65 percent of the communication managers were men.
Of the 22 percent of firms with a dedicated communication department or employee
approximately 30 percent indicated that the titles of the head of communication were
communications director, head, etc. However, a large 70 percent of the respondents
indicated that the person responsible for their communication activities had an “other” title.
In 35 percent of cases this was a person in marketing or sales, and in 29 percent of the cases
the person responsible for communication had the title CEO. This is not surprising
considering that 42 percent of the firms had less than 19 employees. Other positions with
main responsibility for communication were, in order, the marketing department, personnel
(HR), and finance. Similarly, 81 percent felt these reporting lines were appropriate, or as one
respondent stated, “it is the leader who is responsible for communication.”
The larger firms (more than 100 employees) and those listed on the stock exchange
were more likely to have a communication director or at least someone with a title
reflecting that they worked in communication. In total, 65 percent of those in charge of
communication were male and 35 percent female.

Retail 25%
Industrial 22%
Building and construction 12%
Hotel and restaurant 4% Table I.
Transportation and communication 5% Industries represented
Service 29% in private sector survey
JCOM Study variables
18,1 Importance of communication and reputation. To answer RQ1, information was
first collected on the degree to which leaders believe communication contributes
to increased market share, economic results, and maintaining or increasing sales.
Communication’s contribution to organizational success compared to other
management functions of sales, finance/accounting, personnel/HR, marketing,
64 security, IT, and legal was also measured.
Data on leaders’ perceptions of the importance of various communication
disciplines (see the list below) were also collected:
. communication skills;
. marketing/branding and consumer communication;
. internal communication and change communication;
. corporate communication;
. personal coaching;
. sustainability and CSR;
. lobbying;
. crisis/issues management;
. investor relations; and
. international communication.
Two separate questions were asked about whether communication and reputation were
considered when strategic decisions were made in the organization, and if they
consider reputation to be important to their organization’s success. Reputation is
considered a key outcome of building relationships, and relationships are seen as the
outcome of communication. This comes under the purview of the communication
function and managing relationships and reputation are seen as strategic activities.
According to Zerfass (2009) communication departments’ success will be relegated to
counting media clips if the importance of reputation is not seen as a strategic activity.
Analysis and comparisons are done for organizations with communication
departments and organizations without communication departments. The perceptions
of leaders of communication activities are compared with practitioner perceptions
using data from Norwegian respondents in the Communication Monitor 2011 study.
The mean and standard deviation are provided along with top box scores.
Involvement in strategic decision-making processes, competencies, and influence.
Work done by Ashmos et al. (1998), Gay and Dulewicz (1996), and Dulewicz and
Herbert (1996) is used in order to answer RQ2; RQ3 their level of competencies; and
RQ4 their influence on decision making. This work has also previously been employed
by Brønn (2001). Only organizations with a separate communication function or person
responsible for communication answered this part of the survey.
Perception of involvement in strategic decision making was measured by asking
respondents to answer yes or no if their communication directors were actively
engaged in the following activities when decisions were being made:
. raising issues;
. clarifying problems;
 . generating alternatives; Leaders’
. evaluating alternatives, and perceptions of
. choosing alternatives. communication
Perception of communication directors’ competencies to engage in strategic decision
processes was measured with a set of questions assessing a person’s competencies for
success and rate of advancement. The eight items (a ¼ 0.751), shown in the following list 65
with the statements measuring them, reflect characteristics associated with strategic
thinking/orientation (see Brønn, 2001). Strategic decision-making competencies:
. has extensive knowledge of important issues within the organization
(organizationally awareness);
. has extensive knowledge of issues and changes in the external environment
(issues oriented);
. is proactive and encourages the introduction of new structures, methods and
guidelines (proactive);
. systematically seeks all possible relevant information for the task (systematic);
. identifies problems and possible causes of the problems (analytical);
. comes with very creative and innovative ideas (creative and innovative);
. rises above the immediate problem or situation and sees the broader problem
areas/issues and far-reaching consequences of them (system thinkers); and
. determines future priorities and can forecast foreseeable changes to meet future
(future oriented).

Respondents were asked to rate their communication executives on a scale of 1-5,

where 1 ¼ very poor and 5 ¼ outstanding. The mean and standard deviation are
provided along with the percentage indicating outstanding (5) on the scale. To assess
relationships between these dimensions and other variables the eight items
were subjected to a principal component analysis (PCA) after testing the data for
suitability. These components will be retained for further investigation such as
correlation analysis.
To measure perception of influence respondents were asked five questions on: (1)
degree of support from top management, (2) if communication employees have large
influence, (3) if the communication department has great influence on the
organization’s leader, (4) if the communication director has great personal influence,
and (5) whether or not they should have little personal influence. With the exception
of question 1, respondents were asked if they, 1, totally agreed with the statement
or, 7, totally disagreed. Question 1 used the scale 1 ¼ very little support to
7 ¼ considerable support. The mean and standard deviation are provided along with a
top box analysis.
The respondents were given three additional questions to find out at what point
communication directors are engaged in the decision process (1 ¼ at the beginning,
7 ¼ at the end), how often they participate in strategic decision processes (1 ¼ all the
time, 7 ¼ not at all), and what expertise they are perceived as bringing to the process
(1 ¼ limited or narrow, 7 ¼ broad range). Responses are provided in the form of a top
box analysis.
JCOM To further nuance the involvement in decision making respondents were also asked
18,1 how often the communication executives were invited to different types of meetings:
meetings where cases were discussed that might have communication consequences
and meetings at the top level that deal with strategic planning.

Results
66 RQ1: importance of communication and reputation
Respondents ranked PR/CC sixth overall (M ¼ 4.72) when assessing the contribution of
PR/communication against eight other organizational functions. They placed it only
slightly ahead of security and IT. Perhaps not unexpectedly, given that the samples
are all from the private sector, sales was ranked as providing the most contribution
to the firms’ success. Only 34 percent of firms ranked PR’s contribution to
organizational success as high, i.e. gave it a score from 6 to 7, on a scale of 1-7 where 1
is no contribution at all and 7 is contributes a great deal. The independent-samples
t-test indicated there were significant differences in scores for those firms with a
communication department and for those without one for all functions except for
security and personnel/HR. Those with a department rated PR/CC’s contribution
significantly higher ( po0.000, two-tailed), 55 percent agreeing it contributes a great
deal vs 29 percent agreeing, respectively.
However, further analysis indicated that having a PR department or person
responsible for the function had only a moderate effect on leaders’ perception of its
contribution to a firm’s success (Z2 ¼ 0.068) (Table II).
There was a clear indication that leaders believe PR contributes to market share
and sales (M ¼ 5.42 and 5.51, respectively). Respondents were slightly less positive
on communication’s contribution to economic results (M ¼ 5.23). Respondents with a
separate communication function or person working with communication are
appreciably more positive to the value of communication to market share, sales, and
economic results than those without a department or function.
The statement receiving the highest rating in the entire survey was on reputation’s
importance for an organization’s success (M ¼ 6.00, SD ¼ 1.212). Slightly more than
70 percent of all respondents rated this as extremely important, again with differences
of 21 percent points between the two groups, with those with communication
departments finding it more important. An independent-samples t-test was conducted
to compare the mean scores for contribution. There were significant differences in

Contributes to a great Firms with/without

Function Means (n ¼ 1343) degree (6-7) (%) department

1 Sales 5.71 65 –
2 Finance/accounting 5.34 52 –
3 Personnel/HR 5.33 51 –
4 Strategic planning 5.17 47 –
Table II. 5 Marketing 5.07 45 –
Private sector: how do you 6 PR/corporate communication 4.72 34 55%/29%**
perceive the following 7 Security 4.72 37 –
functions as contributing 8 IT 4.69 32 –
to organizational success 9 Legal 3.48 10 –
compared to other
functions? Notes: 1, no contribution; 7, contribute to a great degree. Z2 ¼ 0.068. **po0.000, two-tailed
scores for all statements for those firms with a communication department and for Leaders’
those without one (po0.000, two-tailed). perceptions of
However, while respondents considered communication and reputation in
organizational decision processes and planning moderately important (M ¼ 4.97), communication
only 39 percent of all respondents found it extremely important. Once again, there were
differences between the groups, with 59 percent of those with designated
communication departments or functions finding it extremely important vs 34 67
percent of those without (Table III).
As Table IV shows, leaders in the private sector rank the importance of only two
communication areas 5 or higher on a scale of 1-7: communication skills (M ¼ 5.35)
and marketing/branding and consumer communication (M ¼ 5.16), with
communication skills as the most important discipline for leaders. More than half
of respondents overall ranked communication skills and marketing/branding as
extremely important, but more than 60 percent of organizations with a communication
department or dedicated position rated both of these as extremely important vs
o50 percent for firms without.
Least important for all firms are crisis/issues management (M ¼ 3.13), investor
relations (M ¼ 3.12), and international communication (M ¼ 2.80). Respondents rated
CSR as a marginally important communication discipline (M ¼ 3.92) with only 21
percent of the total group finding it extremely important. Here again, there was a large
difference between those with or without a separate communication person or function;
34 and 16 percent, respectively. An independent-samples t-test indicated significant
differences in scores for all activities for those firms with a communication department
and for those without one ( po0.000, two-tailed).
The Norwegian results from the Communication Monitor 2011 (Zerfass et al., 2011)
indicate startling differences between other leaders and communication practitioners.
For example, leaders find communication skills the most important and practitioners
find it among the least important, along with personal coaching. In contrast,
practitioners find crisis communication/issues management of utmost importance,
only after marketing/branding while leaders find this one of the least important
practices associated with communication.
When looking at the Norwegian results from the Communication Monitor 2011 for
respondents working in the public sector we find few differences between practitioners
in the private sector (note: public sector practitioners made up 43 percent of the
Norwegian sample in the Communication Monitor 2011).

RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4: involvement in strategic decision-making processes, competencies,

and influence
Table V shows what percentage of leaders indicated that their communication
executives were engaged in the listed strategic activities. Only 44 percent of leaders
answered “yes” that their communication managers were involved in making final
decisions (choosing alternatives), even though they were highly involved in suggesting
alternatives. Results indicate that leaders believe communication managers have
something to add to the process but that they are not really “there” when decisions
are made.
In general, leaders’ assessment of their communication managers’ performance in
competencies associated with strategic decision making is above average but not very
much greater than that. Knowledge of the organization ranks the highest (M ¼ 3.82 on
a 1-5 scale), but only 24 percent ranked their communication directors as outstanding
 68
18,1
JCOM

Table III.

following statements?
To what degree do you
agree/disagree with the
Means with Means without Strongly agree Strongly agree
Means total comm. comm. Strongly agree with comm. without comm.
sample department department Difference total sample department department
(n ¼ 1343) SD (n ¼ 294) (n ¼ 997) in means (6-7) (%) (6-7) (%) (6-7) (%)

Communication contributes to
increased market share 5.42 1.482 6.03 5.24 0.79** 53 74 48
Communication contributes to
improved economic results 5.23 1.493 5.80 5.06 074** 47 64 42
Communication contributes to
maintaining or increasing sales 5.51 1.454 6.09 5.35 0.74** 55 76 53
Communication and reputation
are considered in strategic decision
processes and planning in our
organization 4.97 1.636 5.72 4.76 0.96** 39 59 34
Reputation contributes to an
organization’s success 6.00 1.212 6.41 5.88 0.53** 71 86 65
Notes: 1, totally disagree; 7, totally agree. **po0.000, two-tailed
 Very important Very important
Very important with comm without comm Ranking by
Means total sample department (6-7) department (6-7) Ranking by communicatorsa
Communication disciplines (n ¼ 1343) SD (6-7) (%) (n ¼ 293) (%) (n ¼ 997) (%) leaders (n ¼ 1,343) (n ¼ 90)

Communication skills 5.35 1.50 52 63 48 1 8

Marketing/branding and consumer
communication 5.16 1.831 50 66 45 2 3
Internal communication and
change management 4.99 1.72 44 62 39 3 4
Personal coaching 4.68 1.74 37 46 34 5 8
Corporate Communication 4.52 1.90 31 48 27 4 1
Sustainability and CSR 3.92 1.82 21 34 18 6 7
Lobbying 3.55 1.89 18 30 15 7 6
Crisis/issues management 3.13 1.79 11 21 8 8 2/5
Investor relations 3.12 1.74 11 14 9 9 10
International communication 2.80 1.90 12 18 11 10 9
Notes: 1, not important; 7, very important. aNorwegian respondents from Communication Monitor 2011
communication

organization?
following communication
How important are the
Table IV.
Leaders’

69

disciplines for your

perceptions of
JCOM in this area. There is also general agreement among respondents as the standard deviation
18,1 in all cases is below 1, which is not the case in other areas. Communication managers are
perceived as marginally able to see the big picture or the far-reaching consequences of
other than immediate problems (systems thinkers). They were ranked lowest on their
ability to think strategically about the future (future oriented) (M ¼ 3.41) (Table VI).
As the table below indicates, leaders believe they are supportive of their
70 communication function. On a scale of 1-7 with 1 being little support and 7 a great deal
of support, the mean was 5.75. They are less positive when asked about what sort of
influence the department has on the organization in general (M ¼ 4.88) and on the
leader in particular (M ¼ 4.92). Similarly, a mean of 4.92 is the result when asked if the
communication department has a large influence on the leader specifically, and was
only slightly lower at 4.91 when asked if the communication director had personal
influence on the leader. The standard deviation in both cases is 1.6, indicating that
there is not complete unison on this issue (Table VII).
Table VIII gives results on statements asking private sector leaders’ perceptions of
their communication managers when it comes to participation in decision processes.
These questions try to uncover how often they are involved, at what point in time they
are engaged in the process, and the breadth of expertise that they bring to the process.
The results show that not all communication managers participate all the time in

Table V. Yes (%)

Private sector: the
communication director is Suggesting alternatives 72
involved in the following Raising issues 66
activities connected to Evaluating alternatives 55
decision processes in our Clarifying problems 49
firm, yes or no answer Choosing alternatives 44

% rating
Strategic decision-making competencies Mean SD outstanding (5)

Has extensive knowledge of important issues within the

organization (organizationally awareness) 3.82 0.939 24
Has extensive knowledge of issues and changes in the external
environment (issues oriented) 3.72 0.886 19
Is proactive and encourages the introduction of new structures,
methods and guidelines (proactive) 3.68 0.916 20
Systematically seeks all possible relevant information for the
task (methodical) 3.66 0.772 11
Identifies problems and possible causes of the problems
(analytical) 3.62 0.800 11
Comes with very creative and innovative ideas (creative and
innovative) 3.60 0.912 16
Rises above the immediate problem or situation and sees the
broader problem areas/issues and far-reaching consequences of
them (systems thinker) 3.48 0.827 9
Table VI. Determines future priorities and can forecast foreseeable
Rating of communication changes to meet future (future oriented) 3.41 0.882 11
manager’s performance in
specific strategic areas Notes: 1, very poor; 5, outstanding
Support and influence N Mean SD
Leaders’
perceptions of
1. How much support does the PR/communication function get from top communication
leaders (board chair/CEO) 1, very little support; 7, considerable support 281 5.75 1.348
2. The employees in the communication department have a large influence on
what individuals or groups do in the firm 275 4.88 1.602
3. The communication department has a large influence on what you do as 71
leader in your organization 275 4.92 1.604
4. The communication director has a large personal influence on what other
groups in the organization do 269 4.91 1.642
5. The communication director should have little personal influence on what
individuals or groups in the firm do 263 3.31 1.748
Table VII.
Notes: 1, totally disagree; 7, totally agree. Statement 5 is reversed so that a lower answer is desirable Statements 2-5 use scale

Participation in decision processes 1-2 (%) 3-5 (%) 6-7 (%)

1. The communication director participates together with other top

leaders in the strategic processes in our firm. 1, all the time; 7, not at
all (n ¼ 275) 58 27 10
2. At what point in the decision process does the communication
normally come in? 1, from the beginning; 7, at the end of the process
(n ¼ 270) 57 32 2
3. What type of expertise does the communication director bring into
Table VIII.
the decision process in your firm 1, limited or narrow; 7, broad
Participation in decision
range (n ¼ 269) 4 45 43
processes by
Note: See scale under each statement for clarification communication managers

strategic processes nor are they all part of the team when a process begins. They
appear to be brought in relatively early in the process, however, but less than half are
perceived to have a relatively broad range of expertise to contribute to the process.
When decisions are made where communication consequences are considered, 45
percent of private sector leaders said the communication director was always invited,
but only 39 percent indicated they were always invited when strategic planning was
being discussed. Only 18 percent of the exchange listed firms indicated that they
always invited their communication executives to strategic planning meetings.

Correlations
To assess relationships between communication managers’ strategic competencies
and other variables the eight items measuring strategic decision-making
competencies were subjected to a PCA after testing the data for suitability. The PCA
revealed the presence of two components with eigen values exceeding 1 explaining 44
and 22 percent of the variance. These factors have been labeled “strategic orientation”
(a ¼ 0.860) and “creative reasoning” (a ¼ 0.901) (see Table IX).
“Strategic orientation” is characterized by the six competencies, in order of
importance; proactive, issues and future oriented, creative, and innovative,
knowledgeable of the organization and systems thinker. The “solution oriented”
factor comprises the competencies: analytical and methodical. The “solution oriented”
factor is important as it describes a person who has a scientific and systematic
JCOM approach to solving problems because they are analytical and methodical in their
18,1 approach to problems. However, in this research the point is to look at broader
characteristics of strategic behavior, therefore analyses are done using only the
strategic orientation factor.
The relationship between strategic orientation and a number of variables that
measure engagement in strategic processes and importance of communication was
72 investigated using Pearson correlation coefficient (see Table X). Strategic orientation
is moderately but significantly correlated with all variables except for importance
of CC. Leaders believe communication is important regardless of the traits of their
communication staff. However, the more communication executives are perceived as
having a strategic orientation the more likely they have support from top management,
are able to influence the organization and the top leader, and attend strategic meetings.
Furthermore, the more strategic the communication director the more communication
is seen to impact business success. There was moderate negative correlation with
participation in top meetings and timing of entry into decision processes. This is due to
the scale, where the lower answers are desirable. The more the strategic orientation, the
earlier communication executives are brought into meetings and the more likely they
are to participate more often in meetings at the top level.
The strongest correlation was between invitation to strategic meetings and support
from top management (0.539, po0.01). The more the communication director is
supported by top management, the more they will be invited to meetings. This implies
that visibility is important.

Key findings and discussion

This study has asked more than 1,300 business leaders about their perceptions of the
value of communication in their organizations, what they find most important for their
firms regarding communication, and their perceptions of the strategic competencies of
their communication departments and leaders. We have thus been able to sketch out a
picture of other leaders’ view of their communication executives and departments.
What can be considered a surprising result is that most private sector firms in
Norway do not have PR/CC departments or individuals responsible for PR. Only 22
percent of respondents indicated they had a department or individual in charge of
communication; this included some very large firms (the typical Norwegian firm falls
into the small to medium-size classification). The low number of communication
departments in the private sector has also been found in other countries (see e.g. Moss
et al., 2003). Curiously, 60 percent of the communication executives in the private sector

Variables from survey items Strategic orientation Solution oriented

Proactive 0.811
Issues oriented 0.808
Future oriented 0.769
Creative and innovative 0.750
Organizationally well-informed 0.738
Table IX. Systems thinker 0.720
Principal components Analytical 0.952
analysis with Varimax Methodical 0.951
rotation and Kaiser a 0.860 0.901
normalization Variance explained 44% 22%
 Personal Timing of
Importance Support influence of Participation participation Invitation to Impact on
Strategic of corporate from top communication in top strategic in decision strategic business
orientation communication management director meetings process meetings success

Strategic orientation Pearson correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed)
Importance of Pearson correlation 0.062 1
corporate
communication
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.359
Support from top Pearson correlation 0.332** 0.103
management 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.125
Personal influence of Pearson correlation 0.435** 0.057
communication
director 0.493** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.399 0.000
Participation in top Pearson correlation 0.249** 0.070
strategic meetings 0.360** 0.325** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.299 0.000 0.000
Timing of participation Pearson correlation 0.288** 0.054 1
in decision process 0.423** 0.462** 0.442**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.429 0.000 0.000 0.000
Invitation to strategic Pearson correlation 0.432** 0.008 0.454** 1
meetings 0.539** 0.386** 0.492**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.909 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Impact on business Pearson correlation 0.386** 0.079 0.242** 0.240** 1
success 0.325** 0.353** 0.145*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.240 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000

Notes: n ¼ 221. *po0.05 (two-tailed); **po0.01 (two-tailed)

communication

Strategic orientation
Leaders’

Table X.
73
perceptions of

correlations
JCOM were men. In the Norwegian Public Relations Association, 60 þ percent of members
18,1 are women, and in the largest firms in Norway there is a 50-50 distribution of women
and men as communication executives (Norwegian Benchmark Study, 2008). The large
number of male respondents might be due to the fact that many described those
responsible for communication as the firm’s leader.

74 Importance of communication and reputation

The analyses indicate that leaders find PR/CC as not very important to organizational
success when compared to other management functions. “Sales” was ranked the most
important for these firms and this may not be very surprising considering these firms
are dependent on sales in order to survive.
While communication is seen as contributing to financial success of an
organization, it does not appear to be considered to any great degree in decision
making. It is not clear if this means that stakeholders are not considered since the
statements do not explicitly address this. This could be an important distinction,
particularly since the private sector rates reputation as the highest when it comes to
contribution/importance to organizational success.
Leaders appear to understand that personal communication is very important for
their organizations as they ranked this even ahead of marketing and branding in
importance. However, communication practitioners rated communication skills on the
bottom of the list of what they found to be important. This points to a real schism
between what leaders want and what their communication people think they need.
Practitioners appear to be more concerned with crisis, ranking it number 2 behind CC.
Interestingly, sustainability and CSR are on the bottom of the list of what leaders
view as important as a communication discipline. Only 3 percent of members of the
Norwegian Public Relations Association said they have responsibility for this in
their organization (Norwegian Communication Association, 2012). If strategic
communication is a form of business legitimacy, in that organizations try to deal
with the demands of the environment through the reflection of societal requirements
(Holmström 2004, p. 122), CSR, or CSR communication, should be an important task for
the communication function. But most respondents rated CSR as only a marginally
important communication discipline, and few rated it as extremely important.
An important finding is that there were significant differences in almost all cases
between those having a communication department and those without one. In nearly
every instance, firms with a separate communication function or executive rated the
importance of communication and its contribution higher and more strongly agreed
with the statements. However, the existence of a communication department had only
moderate impact on leaders’ perception of the contribution of communication to the
organization’s success regardless of whether they had a communication function or not.
This is supported in Table X, which shows no correlation between leaders’ perception of
the importance of CC and the strategic orientation of communication executives. It is
difficult to make conclusions on these results without further information, but one
inference is that leaders do find communication in general important regardless.
What seems to be an issue is definition of the practices found within
communication. In follow-up interviews with small and medium-sized firms without
communication departments, leaders indicated that their only use for PR was in the
case of a crisis. They also appeared to have limited knowledge as to what PR/CC is.
They tended to associate it with marketing and advertising and primarily with dealing
with the media (media as “free” advertising), which they had no need for. They believed
those types of activities are more appropriate for large firms. However, it proved to be the Leaders’
case that they practiced PR but were not aware of it; for example they were engaged in perceptions of
employee relations and sponsorship of local activities. Knowledge of PR/communication
by others than communication practitioners within organizations appears be an issue that communication
is still problematic. Wright (1998) uncovered similar misunderstandings from his survey
and interviews of managers. Executives from finance, accounting, HR, legal, and sales and
marketing had little understanding of the communication function. More recent research 75
reveals there are even variances on how it is perceived between countries. For example,
there are differences between the USA and the UK, with Brits being less knowledgeable
(Gray et al., 2004) and Americans more (Evatt et al., 2005).
Involvement in strategic decision making
While most top leaders partly agree that communication is considered in strategic
processes and planning, there is still disagreement among top leaders in Norway if
communication managers are key players in the success of their organizations. The private
sector gives their communication people credit for taking initiative to raise important
issues and suggesting alternatives, but less than half said the communication executive
was involved in actually choosing alternatives. The question, which is the desirable
situation? To be involved by giving suggestions but being locked out of the final decision?
Optimally, the communication executive should be involved throughout the process.
Competencies to engage the organization’s strategic decision-making processes
The results from this section shed light on why the communication staff is not involved to a
greater degree in decision making. As noted previously, Norwegian top leaders’ assessment
of their communication managers’ performance in competencies associated with strategic
orientation is above average but not very much greater than that. The number that could
rate their communication executives as outstanding in any of these areas is very low.
According to Hayes (1985) strategic thinking is a requirement for managers in
order to: understand the appropriate external environment, understand the
capabilities, and objectives of the organization, understand the connections between
loosely connected events, recognize several influencers, sense new opportunities, and
see a variety of strategies or solutions. Furthermore, competencies in these eight
areas are considered key for promotion and advancement. In addition, the reflective
paradigm of PR requires essential qualifications of the practitioner along with “insight
into the social and societal conditions, structures and processes in which organizations
are embedded” (Holmström 2004, pp. 128-129).
Influence on decision making and development of strategies
The influence the communication function has on decision making and development of
strategies is quite limited in many organizations. While it appears that communication
executives are viewed as having a broad range of expertise to bring to the table and
have reasonably strong support from their leaders, influence of the department or the
department heads on the organizations’ leaders is somewhat more ambiguous.
Demonstrations of influence can be measured by how often and at what point
communication staff is brought into the decision process. The majority of
communication directors are brought in relatively early and are engaged all the time
in decision making. However, when a distinction is made between being in a meeting
and being invited to a meeting where communication consequences are discussed and
where strategic planning is being discussed, communication directors are less likely to
always be invited to meetings where strategic planning is on the agenda.
JCOM Strategic orientation, influence, participation
18,1 The correlation analysis clearly shows how important it is for communication
directors to perform well on competencies associated with strategic orientation; it is the
key to the boardroom so to speak. Business leaders who view their communication
directors as being able to contribute strategically are more likely to value them and the
contribution of the communication function to their organization’s success. But not
76 only that, communication executives would more likely to be invited to strategic
meetings, not just meetings where communication is the main topic, and they would be
invited early in the process if they were perceived as being more strategic.
It is problematic therefore that only 3 percent of Norwegian communication
practitioners list the two key aspects of strategic orientation (environmental scanning
and issues management) as areas that they have responsibility for in their
departments. And only 17.2 percent of Norwegian respondents in the Communication
Monitor 2011 survey indicated total agreement on making a thorough evaluation
based on all possible information with a similar small number agreeing that scientific
literature and research can help in decisions.

Further research and limitations

In order to eliminate the respondent bias associated with the current surveys
purporting to measure institutionalization of communication it is necessary to
duplicate this study in other countries. Researching leaders as opposed to
communication practitioners can uncover where there are gaps between the two
groups in the areas selected as important in the various surveys. It will also help the
communication discipline make more informed statements about its state of
institutionalization.
Because the respondents in the private sector often had marketing and sales people
responsible for communication it raises the question as to how the respondents define PR
and CC. There is some indication that many firms and organizations without a formal
function are performing the various activities associated with strategic communication
or PR, but are in fact unaware they are doing it. Further research should adjust for this in
surveys by either avoiding the terms or breaking them down more explicitly.
Most obviously research needs to be done in firms where there is no formal
communication function. Should institutionalization of strategic communication only
be studied in firms where there is a formal communication function? Is the existence of
a formal function a pre-requisite for institutionalization?
Also surfacing in this research is the role of the top leader/CEO. The correlation
analysis demonstrated that having the support of the top leader is critical in
communication managers’ involvement and acceptance on the top management team.
This would seem to be counter to the spirit of institutionalization, where “patterns of
actions” should not be impacted by particular actors, such as the top leader. However,
84.2 percent of respondents in Communication Monitor 2012 (Zerfass et al., 2012)
ranked “Lack of understanding of communication practice within top management” as
the foremost barrier affecting the professionalism of PR/CC.
One important area brought up in this research is the role of CSR and the
communication function. Practitioners and leaders alike in the private sector view it as
not very important as related to the communication function. Tench et al. (2009) raise
the question of whether CSR activities are image or substance if the motivation behind
them is primarily reputation building? This implies somewhat obliquely that if CSR
activities are about image then they are somehow associated with PR and are not
substantive. While CSR is an important area for any organization, what precisely is its Leaders’
role in the communication function? This question needs to be explored in more depth. perceptions of
One limitation of this study is that it employed a composite questionnaire developed
for communication managers. This was a drawback as other leaders might not be communication
aware of what they are answering; terms such as PR, CC and strategic communication
are used interchangeably with no explanation. Further research done with
non-communication managers perhaps should concentrate on one construct and 77
define that for the respondents before they answer the questionnaire. A Delphi study
for leaders on how they define PR or communication similar to that done for
communication practitioners is another possibility.
Frandsen and Johansen (2011) also note that research in this area is also clouded by
the fact that the words strategy and management have similar problems in that people
ascribe different meanings to them. Add to this the need to understand the different
types of strategy made at different levels of the organization, for example from
organizational to operational strategy. It would be interesting to combine this research
with the studies of Moss et al. (2005), who developed five typologies describing what
communication managers do.
A further limitation of this study is that it was conducted in Norway, a small
country with businesses that tend to be very small. This study appears to be restricted
by the fact that so few organizations actually have someone responsible for their
communication, at least in the traditional sense.

Conclusion
The research described in this paper is distinguished by the fact that it has looked at
the institutionalization of strategic communication from the viewpoint of others than
communication executives, mainly leaders in private sector firms. It has also addressed
the question of whether these leaders believe communication managers are able and
prepared to provide strategic counsel to top management. This has provided a much
different depiction than that developed by research based on surveys of
communication practitioners.
The research is primarily descriptive but in developing a strategic orientation factor,
it has been possible to demonstrate the impact of possessing certain competencies on
likelihood of inclusion in strategic processes and in the dominant coalition. These
competencies mirror activities that are done by those at the very top of the organization.
But they do not appear to be highly valued by communication practitioners themselves.
It has been argued that the bridging function is more strategic because it requires
scanning the environment, contact with stakeholders and an ability to analyze data
that can be taken into an organization’s strategic decision making. However, the
communication manager will continue to only be viewed as a “message deliverer,” if
not included in the strategic decision process, where their expertise, bridging skills,
and knowledge of effective communication are recognized. It is this mindset that is
counterproductive to perceiving the value of communication in achieving success. It
also leads to the communication department enacting predominantly the buffering
role, where they take a more reactive and often defensive part.
One question arising from this research is if there is a need for a communication
function in order for communication to be institutionalized. It would seem that
institutionalization of communication is also evident by a bridging approach by everyone
in the organization. Leaders want to be more competent in communicating, as they listed
this as number one in importance. They also see the value of communication and
JCOM reputation in organizational success. This implies the need for a communication function
18,1 that in its advisory or reflective capacity assists the organization in achieving, among other
things, a mindset that finds communication important. Institutionalization from this view
is then interpreted as the thought structure of the entire organization, but most importantly
leaders; the communicative organization if you will. The institutionalized thought
structure must reside with all of management, not just with the communication executives.
78 References
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974), Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness,
Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Ashmos, D.P., Duchon, D. and McDaniel, R.R. Jr (1998), “Participation in strategic decision
making: the role of organizational predisposition and issue interpretation”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 25-51.
Brønn, P. (2001), “Communication managers as strategists? Can they make the grade?”, Journal of
Communication Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 313-326.
Dulewicz, V. and Herbert, P. (1996), “General management competences and personality:
a seven-year follow-up study”, HWP No. 9621, working paper series, Henley Management
College, Oxfordshire.
Evatt, D.S., Ruiz, C. and Triplett, J.F. (2005), “Thinking big, staying small, IABC”, San Francisco, CA.
Fleck, D. (2007), “Institutionalization and organizational long-term success”, Brazilian
Administration Review, Vol. 4 No. 002, pp. 64-80.
Frandsen, F., and Johansen, W. (2011), “Strategy, management, leadership and public relations”,
in Heath, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 293-306.
Gay, K. and Dulewicz, V. (1996), “An investigation into the personal competences required by
board directors of international companies”, HP No. 9701, working paper series, Henley
Management College, Oxfordshire.
Goodman, P.S. and Dean, J.W. Jr (1982), “The process of institutionalization”, in Goodman, P.S.
(Ed.), Change in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 226-279.
Gray, D., Davies, F. and Blanchard, K. (2004), “Does use of public relations promote a higher
growth rate in small firms? The case of Lincolnshire”, Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 294-301.
Gregory, A. (2008), “Competencies of senior communication practitioners in the UK: an initial
study”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 215-223.
Grunig, L. (1992), “Power in the public relations department”, in Grunig, J. (Ed.), Excellence in
Public Relations and Communication Management, L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 483-500.
Grunig, J. (2006), “Furnishing the edifice: ongoing research on public relations as a strategic
management function”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 151-176.
Hayes, M. (1985), “Developing managers for strategic management”, in Guth, W.D. (Ed.),
Handbook of Business Strategy, Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Kap, Boston, MA, pp. 420-444.
Holmström, S. (2004), “The reflective paradigm of public relations”, in van Ruler, B. and Verčič, D.
(Eds), Public Relations and Communication Management in Europe: A Nation-by-Nation
Introduction to Public Relations Theory and Practice, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 121-134.
Invernizzi, C. and Romenti, S. (2009), “Institutionalization and evaluation of corporate communication in
Italian companies”, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 116-130.
MacMillan, K. (1991), “The management of European public affairs”, ECPA occasional papers,
July 1, pp. 3-26.
Moss, D., Ashford, R. and Shani, N. (2003), “The forgotten sector: uncovering the role of public
relations in SMEs”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 197-211.
Moss, D., Newman, A. and DeSanto, B. (2005), “What do communication managers do? Defining
and refining the core elements of management in a public relations/corporate communication
context”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 873-890.
Norwegian Benchmark Study (2008), “Center for corporate communication, Norwegian business Leaders’
school”, Oslo.
perceptions of
Norwegian Communication Association (2012), Membership Survey, Norwegian Communication
Association, Oslo. communication
Swerling, J. and Sen, C. (2009), “The institutionalization of the strategic communication function in
the United States”, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 131-146.
Tench, R., Verhoeven, P. and Zerfass, A. (2009), “Institutionalizing strategic communication in 79
Europe – an ideal home or a mad house? Evidence from a survey in 37 countries”,
International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 147-164.
Tushman, M.L. and Scanlan, T.J. (1981), “Boundary spanning individuals: their role in information
transfer and their antecedents”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 289-305.
van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., Bütschi, G. and Flodin, B. (2004), “A first look for parameters of public
relations in Europe”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 35-63.
Wakefield, R. (2008), “Institutionalizing public relations: progress or pipe dream?”, Proceedings,
11th Annual International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, pp. 768-780.
Warren, R.L., Rose, S.M. and Berg, A.F. (1974), The Structure of Urban Reform: Community
Decision Organizations Stability and Change, Heath, Lexington, MA.
Wright, D.K. (1998), “Validating credibility measures of public relations and communications:
interviews with senior-level managers and executives from other corporate disciplines”,
Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 105-118.
Zerfass, A. (2009), “Institutionalizing strategic communication: theoretical analysis and empirical
evidence”, Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 69-71.
Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D. and Verhoeven, P. (2008), European Communication
Monitor 2012. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results and
Findings, EACD, Brussels.
Zerfass, A., Verhoeven, P., Tench, R., Moreno, A. and Verčič, D. (2011), “European Communication
Monitor 2011. Empirical insights into strategic communication in Europe”, Results of an
empirical survey in 43 countries (chart version), EACD, EUPRERA, Brussels.
Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A. and Tench, R. (2012), “European Communication
Monitor 2012”, Challenges and competencies for strategic communication, results of an
empirical survey in 42 countries, EACD/EUPRERA, Brussels.
Zucker, L.G. (1987), “Institutional theories of organization”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13,
pp. 443-464.
Further reading
Brønn, P. and Dahlen, Ø. (2012), “Communication managers as strategists: are they making the
grade yet? A view of how other leaders view communication managers and
communication in Norwegian private and public sector organizations”, paper presented
at Euprera Conference, Istanbul, September 20-22.
Corporate Communication International. available at: www.baruch.cuny.edu/campusstories/
facultyspotlight/michaelgoodman.html (accessed March 2012).
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organization: formal structure as myth and
ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 340-363.
Corresponding author
Professor Peggy Simcic Brønn can be contacted at: peggy.bronn@bi.no

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.