To whom should we report?

It's an age-old question: what box should employee communications occupy in the standard corporate org chart?

There are lots of options. Over my career I have seen internal communications report through to HR, public affairs, legal, administration and even marketing.

In an ideal world, employee communications would have its own VP, reporting directly to the CEO.  The VP of Employee Communications (got a nice ring to it, don't it?) would counsel the CEO and the senior exectutive team on internal communications strategy and would use every internal channel to help build an integrated, fully engaged, high-performance workforce. Employee communication issues would be would be taken into account before any decision or action the organization would take.

The EC VP would have a seat at the strategic table, where he or she would champion the core values of accuracy, transparency, timeliness and humanity. Thanks to the leadership and wise counsel of the EC VP, the CEO and executives would communicate effectively and earn the trust of employees, who would become so connected to the business and so committed to its vision that the competition would have no chance. Eventually, the EC VP would rise to become CEO, and over time MBA grads would covet the EC VP position as a surefire path to corporate glory.

As Nelson on The Simpsons would say, "Ha-ha!" Never in a thousand years. Our function will always report to someone else, whose duties will include employee communications, among other things. We are perennially undervalued function. Executives all think of themselves as communicators (what else is sound management but good communication?). Therefore, appointing someone to be responsible for employee communications at the executive level would be the ultimate abdication of authority and a tacit admission of incompetence on the part of the rest of the executive team.

So, in the absence of the impossible EC VP dream, to whom should we report -- in an ideal, but realistic, world?

How about HR? Human Resources is, after all, responsible for the company's relationship with its employees -- hiring, firing, providing benefits, doling out pensions, awarding pins and watches for long service, negotiating with unions, training...doesn't it make perfect sense to have employee communications reporting to this function?

The only problem is that most, if not all, human resources activities are related to maintaining privacy and secrecy. "We can't divulge this." "We don't want to be tipping our hand in the middle of contract talks." "That's a very sensitive issue that's under discussion and we can't talk about it until it's resolved." "If employees knew that, they'd all want it and we'd go broke." And so on. Also, HR execs, because they have so many tactical responsibilities, tend to focus on tactics and don't think strategically about employee communications, or anything else for that matter. There's just too damned much to do just to keep things running properly.

And how about legal? Lots of communications functions report up to the chief legal officer or corporate counsel. But it's the same problem of secrecy. Lawyers are in the business of reducing risk and limiting liability, which are activities that often don't entail open, transparent communication. "We only communicate when we have to, and only in a way that minimizes the legal risk."

And then there's corporate communications, or public affairs. Lots of employee communicators these days report to someone who is responsible for external communications. That's better, perhaps, because the PR type has got to care about open communications. And they'll have at least a basic knowledge of employee communications theories and practices.

But the problem is that executives who are primarily responsible for external communications tend to live in a world where they go from one external crisis to the next. They are constantly distracted by the very important public issues that their organization faces, and therefore they don't pay a lot of attention to strategic employee communications.

They think that as long as there's someone competent doing the employee newsletter/intranet site, and the department knows how to organize one or two face-to-face meetings with the CEO every year, they're covered. Of course, if there's a strike, then it becomes a public issue, and then they'll pay full attention -- at least until the story is out of the headlines.

What's worse, external communications people tend to not get along with HR and legal types because of the clash in values described above, so employee communicators who report to external communicators often tend to have negative, adversarial relationships with HR and legal, which doesn't do anybody any good. In other words, if your report directly to HR, you'll have to learn to work with them. If you don't have a direct reporting line to them, it will be easy to ignore or demonize them.

But, of course, I'm generalizing. One thing is for sure. Whatever function we report to, a lot depends on the culture of the organization and the particular person we're reporting to. Some legal and HR execs really do understand the importance of open communiciation with employees, and they're a dream to work with. And some companies have such a healthy, open work environment that it doesn't matter what the reporting structure is -- the employee communicator has a voice that will be listened to, and heeded.

And, of course, a lot depends on you, the communicator. If you have the right values, and you know how to build positive relationships, and you can passionately sell an idea or argue a case,  you're going to be successful no matter who you report to.

So, what to do? What works?

If y ou were organizing or reorganizing your company today, where would employee communications fit in? Has anyone done definitive research on this topic? Does anyone have any strong opinions? Is the answer more obvious than I think it is?

Your comments would be appreciated.

Comments

[Mark]

While you make an interesting point that by reporting to HR you are forced to deal with the issues, I still think the punitive role of HR and the trust needed by Comms makes the relationship impossible.

Corp. Affairs is the way to go, though recognizing that HR is a key business partner (and all that that entails in terms of partnership) is important to keep in mind.

[Ron Shewchuk]

Longtime communicator Craig Jolley shared this Fast Company article with me, entitled "Why I Hate HR." Check it out: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/97/open_hr.html

[Pablo Morano]

Hello,

I have been recently pondering and investigating on this issue. I'm a journalist/social Communicator from Chile. I worked at Internal Communications in a multinational company for almost 2 years where the departament was reporting directly to the HR VP and it always seems so akward how when communications were most needed through transitions, the more we kept shutting down tools and media.

I've also found an uneasy feeling through out other organizations that are placing in my country their IC dept into the HR VP's, as their comms tend to focus just on benefits and lack the overall look of the corporate strategy.

I'm afraid someone here has been telling around the HR seminars that IC must be inside the HR VP's...

Nice to find your blog...