Institutionalization and Evaluation of Corporate Communication in Italian Companies

International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3: 116–130, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1553-118X print / 1553-1198 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15531180902810197

HSTC1553-118X1553-1198International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 3, No. 2, March 2009: pp. 1–33International Journal of Strategic Communication

Institutionalization and Evaluation of Corporate Communication in Italian Companies

Institutionalization and Evaluation In ItalyINVERNIZZI AND ROMENTI Emanuele Invernizzi and Stefania RomentiIULM University, Milan, Italy

A process of institutionalization of the communication function in complex organizations has beengradually taking place for several years and the evaluation of the results of the communicationefforts is a factor that supports that process. The aim of this article is to test these hypotheses usingthe results of a survey conducted in large Italian private and public organizations. To this end, wewill examine certain indicators of the processes of institutionalization of communication, the spread ofcertain criteria of evaluation of communication and, in particular, the relationship between evaluationand institutionalization. The specific hypothesis is that evaluation of the results of communicationsupports the spread of its use and the strengthening of its role in the strategic management of companiesand, thereby, its institutionalization1.

INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND EVALUATION: THEORETICAL APPROACHES

Corporate communication has undergone a profound evolution, which has increased its strategicimportance in the governance and success of complex organizations (Invernizzi, 2000, 2004).This evolution has created the basis for the ongoing process of institutionalization where the roleof communication is ever more important, because it contributes to the strategic management oforganizations and increases their overall value (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). Many scholars,drawing from different disciplinary perspectives, have contributed to explaining how corporatecommunication helps the strategic management of organizations and, therefore, strengthens theprocesses of institutionalization. Organizational communication scholars (Jablin & Putnam,2001) focus on the activation of the construction of a shared organizational reality. By engagingorganizational members they contribute to the shaping of organizational behaviors. Public rela-tions scholars (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Ledingham & Bruning, 2001; Muzi Falconi, 2004) focuson the strategic management of relationships with key publics and influential stakeholders.Communication management scholars (Argenti, 2007; Fombrun, 1996; Van Riel, 1995) focuson planning and organizing leadership, vision and all the activities aimed at enhancing corporatereputation.

1In this article, the paragraphs dedicated to “Survey Design” and “Conclusions” have been written by Emanuele Invernizzi;the other three on “Institutionalization and Evaluation: Theoretical Approaches,” “Trends of Institutionalization,” and“The Relation between Institutionalization and Evaluation of Communication” have been authored by Stefania Romenti.

Correspondence should be sent to Emanuele Invernizzi, IULM University, Via Carlo Bo 8, 20143 Milano, Italy.E-mail: [email protected]

INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND EVALUATION IN ITALY 117

Each perspective underscores the importance of defining and enhancing the value of thecontribution of communication to the strategic management of organizations by activating sys-tematic and scientific processes of evaluation of the results. Thus evaluation and measurementis a key factor in the process of institutionalizing communication within organizations, becauseit greatly facilitates the acceptance of the strategic role of the function by top management(Grunig et al., 2002).

Measurement provides the key to the boardroom door (Macnamara, 2004). Unless communi-cation makes use of the evaluation process, it faces marginalization and even questioning of itsvalue. “If the communication function is to be considered as a managerial one, it must refine itsinstruments of measure. To exist and survive, it is important to prove that it is both useful andbeneficial” (Tixier, 1995, p. 19). Watson (2005, p. 1) argues, “It would appear that the conceptof demonstrating or proving value or organizational benefit is embedded in the language of com-munication practice.” The more value decision makers attach to communication, the higher itsconsequent involvement is in strategic management. The Excellence Study (Grunig et al., 2002)has shown a consistent correlation between the value of communication, as estimated by CEOs,and the involvement of communication in organizational decision making.

In this regard, the results that emerge from recent empirical research are significant (CIPR &DTI, 2004; Metrica, 2002; PR News, 2003). These studies indicate that most communicationmanagers attach to evaluation a persuasive and symbolic end towards the top management. Inother words, they maintain that evaluation is crucial to justifying the decisions taken and theinvestments made in the communication function (Watson, 2001). One study shows that morethan 60% of those interviewed utilize it exclusively for that purpose (CIPR & CDF, 2004).

From the research mentioned it emerges that, to pursue this end, the results of the communica-tion function are expressed through simple indicators of immediate comprehension for nonexperts,and through quantitative indicators in order to gain acceptance by top management by those whohave an economic-financial background (Watson & Simmons, 2004). These indicators, how-ever, are limited because they express the results of the communication efforts superficially andsummarily, therefore not showing the complexity of the effects that communication activitiescontribute to accomplish. In addition, these indicators do not even capture the relationshipbetween the communication activities and the fulfilling of organizational goals.

Therefore, the constant effort of those in charge of communication to point out to top manage-ment the value of their activity can entail risks. In fact, it can induce communication people to takeeasy shortcuts, choosing very impressive but not very meaningful evaluation indicators. On theother hand it could be a way for communication managers to gain credibility and to obtain finan-cial means to expand their activities and to add new and more sophisticated measurement methods.

To evaluate and to show the results of the communication function according to the needs ofmanagement is obviously important (Macnamara, 2004; Watson & Simmons, 2004) as long asthis does not affect negatively the significance of the results. It is therefore important to keep inmind that, for the evaluation process to contribute to the institutionalization of the communica-tion function, two premises are indispensable.

The Application of Performance Measurement

The first premise is that the communicators look deeply into the concept of the value of the firm,the processes by which it is created and the methods used to measure it. Thus it is possible to

118 INVERNIZZI AND ROMENTI

evaluate how much communication contributes to organizational objectives (Noble, 1999), inorder to justify expenditures in the management’s eyes and eventually to support the institution-alization process.

Scholars (Lindenmann, 1993; Noble, 1999) define this kind of evaluation as summative,which judges the worth of a communication program at the end and focuses on its outcomes(Bhola, 1990). For this reason, summative evaluation proves the value of communication to theorganization and allows communication managers to report to decision-makers.

In this regard, there are numerous examples of applications of performance measurementmethods to communication, such as Balanced Scorecard (Fleischer & Mahaffy, 1997; Lautenbach,2004; Ritter, 2003; Vos & Schoemaker, 2004; Zerfass, 2008), Return on Investment (SwedishPublic Relations Association, 1996), or Dashboards (Paine & Bender, 2001).

However, the propagation of the summative evaluation and in particular the use of businessmethods in the professional field to evaluate the results of communication is still very limited.To this we must add the very skeptical position of certain influential scholars (Macnamara, 2004;Watson, 2001) regarding the value of methods that report the results of the communication func-tion in economic terms. In particular, they point out that very seldom communication activitiesfollow objectives having to do with sales or with the market value of the firm. Therefore, perfor-mance measurement methods risk not representing the complexity and the multidimensionalcharacter of the long-term effects that the communication function contributes to achieve.

The Complexity of the Effects of Communication

The second premise is that the synthetic and easily comprehensible indicators created for topmanagement must be conceived on the basis of evaluation processes conducted with scientifi-cally valid methods, which capture the complexity of the effects of communication activities.

The impact of communication has to be evaluated in steps at different levels and by applyingmultiple research methodologies. This is the reason why several multi-stage models have been pro-posed as frameworks for evaluating multiple communication effects (cognitive, attitudinal andbehavioral) and combining both qualitative and quantitative, formal and informal research methods.

The levels of effects of communication and the multiplicity of techniques that can beemployed have been analyzed in numerous evaluation models, such as the Yardstick Model(Watson, 1997) the Macro Model (Macnamara, 1992), the Preparation, Implementation andImpact Model (Cutlip, Venter, & Broom, 2000), the Institute for Public Relation’s MeasurementTree (Leary, 2002), and the Planning, Research and Evaluation Model (CIPR & DTI, 2003).

In particular the lowest level consists of short-term effects, which can be monitored throughthe most basic evaluation metrics, such as outputs and outtakes. Outputs are the immediateresults of a particular communication program or activity, for example the number of press clip-pings (Lindenmann, 1993). “More often than not, outputs represent what is readily apparent tothe eye. Outputs measure how well an organization presents itself to others, the amount of expo-sure that the organization receives” (Lindenmann, 2003, p. 5). Outtakes consist of cognitiveeffects on publics and indicate if they received messages directed at them, paid attention to themand understood them. They also measure immediate response of target groups: for example, byseeking further information after a conference.

The long-term effects of communication activity are attitudinal and behavioral, the outcomes.They consist of changes in attitudes and behaviors on the part of those who receive the message.


Outcome evaluation is obviously more sophisticated than output and outtake evaluation, and is afundamental intermediate step without which it is impossible to show achievement of organi-zational objectives. Finally, outcome measures should be linked to organizational objectives(outflow), such as the level of corporate reputation and the quality of stakeholder relationships,in order to prove the contribution of communication to the organization’s value.

For the purposes of evaluation it is important to keep in mind that communication activitiescan pursue short or long term objectives, for which it is necessary to employ specific and ade-quate indicators (Watson, 2001). Media relations, for example, obtain immediate short termeffects, for which it makes sense to use evaluation indicators such as outputs, that is to say theaverage coverage obtained, and outtakes, the public’s immediate reaction such as the number ofcalls made to toll-free numbers. Public affairs or community relations instead pursue long-termobjectives, for which it is wise to maintain continuous evaluation through the entire process,allowing however the possibility of adjustments during the course of the activity, and monitoringchanges in the attitude and behavior of key publics.

Evaluation implemented at attitudinal and behavioral levels can be defined as formativebecause it is concerned with how planned communication activities are being carried out(Noble, 1999). Formative evaluation is typically conducted during the execution of a communi-cation program in order to improve staff competence (Scriven, 1991). Formative evaluation isuseful to modify program activities and strategies on the basis of the lessons learned, to developand to promote ongoing learning among the organization’s communication staff. Evaluation isbased on the collection of qualitative information which describes the process and the long-termeffects achieved. Formative evaluation enables summative evaluation.

Thus measuring facilitates the process of institutionalization of communication, firstly, whenit confirms the achievement of long-term effects (formative evaluation) and secondly, when itestablishes links with organizational objectives and performances (summative evaluation).

SURVEY DESIGN

In this article we maintain that, in Italy but not only, a process of institutionalization of the com-munication function in complex organizations has been gradually taking place for several yearsand that the evaluation of the results of the communication efforts is a factor that supports thatprocess. The aim of our research this is to test these hypotheses using the results of a survey con-ducted in large Italian private and public organizations. To this end, we will examine certainindicators of the processes of institutionalization of communication, the spread of certain criteriaof evaluation of communication and, in particular, the relationship between evaluation and insti-tutionalization. The specific hypothesis is that evaluation of the results of communication sup-ports the spread of its use and the strengthening of its role in the strategic management ofcompanies and, thereby, its institutionalization.

Data was collected by means of an online survey of the communication managers of the 318largest Italian companies, using corporate rankings published by Mediobanca.2 Mediobancarankings classify the 2,000 largest Italian companies on the basis of their balance sheet and we

2Mediobanca is a major Italian Bank with a highly specialized centre for financial analysis research. It annually pub-lishes the most authoritative and complete classification of the largest and most important companies operating in Italy.


chose the top 318 companies as the universe of our research. The sample is self-selective and ismade out of 240 communication managers who accepted our invitation or participate. The surveyhad a response rate of 75.5%. The companies surveyed were both private (72.1%) and public(27.9%). The response rate was deemed reasonably adequate and could therefore be generalizedto some extent to the whole population under study.

The communication managers were mostly corporate communication officers (CCOs), whowere asked to fill in the electronic questionnaire, sent to them by the head of the research projectaccompanied by a personal e-mail. An introductory page described the rationale and the objec-tives of the research project and explained how anonymity was ensured. Respondents were alsogiven the contact address of the research team and were encouraged to get in touch for any reasonhaving to do with the project or any concern about confidentiality. In order to increase responserates, the length of the survey was designed to take not more than 15 minutes to be completed.Data were collected over a period of three months, from April to June 2008.

The complete questionnaire consisted of 31 questions divided into four sections. The first setof questions examined the organizational structure of the communication function and its reportinglines. The second explored in-house communication activities, how frequently external agencieshad been used and the amount of communication spending. The third assessed the managerialcomponent of the communication function, such as the use of planning activities and measurementtools. The fourth set of questions examined the communication managers’ personal characteristicsand the size of the communication staff.

The reason why the response was so high was in large part the result of the relationship activatedby the head of the research project by sending a personal email to each respondent. It was also aconsequence of the reputation of the academic and professional institutions that carried out theproject. It was also helped by three reminders that were sent along with a personal invitation tothe international congress where the results of the survey were to be presented.3

TRENDS OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION

The results of the survey indicated that the process of institutionalizing communication has to dowith a general increase of awareness of the importance of communication, which manifestsitself in different ways. First, specialized communicational activities, such as internal, CSR andcrisis communication, have increased during the last years. Second, and more importantly, com-munication has gained a role in the definition of the organization’s policy and in its strategicmanagement. Third, communication has consolidated the support it gives, and the influence itexercises, on other corporate functions.

To be successful, an organization must be “communicative,” obviously by means of the tradi-tional tools of public relations and publicity aimed at building up and bettering its image, butmostly and most importantly by acting deeply within the organization, so that the managementand the production employees themselves become communicators. In addition, importance must

3The research was conducted by IULM University, Milan, and FERPI (Italian Public Relations Federation) anddirected by Professor Emanuele Invernizzi. The results of the survey were presented at the International Congress ofEUPRERA (European Public Relations Education and Research Association) in Milan on October 16th–18th, 2008.


be placed on the communication embedded in the organization’s products, its way of acting, andall of its personnel activities.

The Indicators of Institutionalization

To empirically evaluate the degree of institutionalization of the communication function andtherefore of the importance that it is gaining in the strategic management of the organization,certain empirical indicators were employed.

First of all we asked ourselves if the top communication manager exercises the role of chiefcommunication officer and if he or she is part of the executive board and reports directly to thechief executive officer. A second indicator, namely, how influential is the communication man-ager in the strategic decision making of the organization, was measured through the question:“How seriously are the communication manager’s proposals taken by the CEO?” The question:“Does the communication manager play a reflective and strategic role?” measured the third indi-cator, namely, whether the communication manager performs the role of analyzing the changingstandards and values of the stakeholders in order to reflect the results within the company andinfluence accordingly the strategic decision making of the executive committee.

As far as the first indicator is concerned, in 78% (n = 167) of the largest Italian companies thecommunication manager is a CCO. The role of the communication manager evolved into that ofthe CCO over the last 15 years. Figure 1 shows that the percentage of CCOs increased steadilyfrom 12% in 1994 to 55% in 2004, to the current 78%. This is an unusually strong trend in theorganizational structure during such a relatively short time span.4

According to the second indicator, 61% (n = 123) of the communication managers see their pro-posals “taken seriously or very seriously”5 by their top managers or CEOs. This is a relatively

4In 1994 and 2004 two surveys, similar to the one conducted in 2008, were carried out with the same methodology,on the same population and by the same research team of IULM University.

5The response options to the question “How seriously the communication managers’ proposals are taken by theCEOs?” are based on a Likert five-point scale from 1 (Taken very seriously) to 5 (Not taken into account).

FIGURE 1 Companies in Italy where communication managers are CCOs.

12%

55%

78%

1994 2004 2008


small percentage, if compared with the 78% of communication managers who are CCOs, butnevertheless still represents a majority of the participants. This indicator becomes even moreinteresting if compared to another variable, namely, the company’s level of innovation. Resultsindicate that the higher the level of innovation, the more the communication managers’ proposalsare taken seriously or very seriously by their managers, as shown in Figure 2 where a cross-tabulation between the two variables is represented.

Innovation and Institutionalization

Figure 2 indicates that the percentage of the highly innovative companies in which the proposalsof communication managers are taken seriously or very seriously jumps to 82% (n = 52), whichis very high, both as an absolute and as a relative value, when compared to the average of 61%.Interestingly enough, the process of institutionalization of communication seems to be strongerin the most innovative companies, which appears to confirm that communication is an importanttool for the company’s development and success.

Finally, the third indicator, “Does the communication manager play a strategic and reflectiverole?” shows that in 59% (n = 146) of the largest Italian companies communication managersplay a strategic and reflective role6, and that in those companies this role is perceived as importantor very important. Looking to the future, the significance of this result gains importance,because the percentage of respondents who believe that the value of this role will increase in thenext three years goes up to 78% (n = 144).

As is the case with the importance of communication managers to organizations, comparingthis indicator with the level of innovation of the companies, in the most innovative companiesthe percentage of communication managers who play a strategic and reflective role increasesfrom 32% (n = 13) to 55% (n = 36) up to 77% (n = 50), according to the level of innovation ofthe company: low, medium and high, as shown in Figure 3.

6The response options to the question “Does the communication manager play a strategic and reflective role?” arebased on a Likert five-point scale from 1 (A very important one) to 5 (Not important at all).

FIGURE 2 Companies in Italy where proposals by communicationmanagers are taken seriously.

27%

57%

82%

Low Medium HighCompanies' level of innovation


These results might appear simplistic, but they strongly support the hypothesis of the institu-tionalization of the communication managers’ role, and more in general, of the communicationfunction within the largest Italian companies. Next, we will test the main hypothesis of thispaper, namely, that there is a positive relation between evaluation of the results of the communi-cation activity and the process of institutionalization of communication.

Findings on Evaluation Practices

The great majority of Italian companies considered in our study are conducting programs tomeasure and evaluate the effectiveness of communication. The results are consistent with recentworldwide (Wright & Gaunt, 2004) and European industry surveys (CIPR & DTI, 2003; PRNews, 2003) and confirm the strategic importance that communicators place on evaluation oftheir work; importance that seems on the rise, compared to a past in which evaluation wasthought of only as a tool to cut the organization’s dead branches (Paine & Bender, 2001). As forthe future, the majority of participants declared that they want to increase the evaluation of thecommunication activities within their organization, and the resources dedicated to it.

The data gathered revolve around two items: the research tools used to evaluate (how wemeasure) and the levels of communication that are measured (what we measure). Regarding thetools used, the study indicates that large Italian companies use primarily formal methods, insteadof relying on intuition or instinct, as was the case in the past. The systematic use of evaluationresearch ensures that the findings are credible in the eyes of the professional and corporate com-munity, therefore contributing to the institutionalization of the function. One can conclude thatthe variety of tools used to evaluate the function strengthens the image of professional commu-nicators who possess a good base of technical competence.

As Figure 4 shows, evaluation is made both with qualitative (67%, n = 161) and quantitative(61%, n = 147) tools. It is also important to note that in the last four years the use of qualitativetools to evaluate communication has increased, from 61% to 67%, whereas the frequency of useof quantitative methods decreased, although not very much, from 64% to 61%.

FIGURE 3 Italian companies where the strategic and reflective role isplayed.

32%

55%

77%

Low Medium High

Companies' level of innovation


The widespread usage of qualitative methods can be explained by the fact that these methodsare easier to apply and generally less expensive than quantitative ones. As a consequence, byapplying qualitative research methods, communication managers prevalently conduct evaluationwith formative aims and try to understand how planned activities are being carried out. Furthermore,less than half of the respondents (43%, n = 103) use online monitoring services to undertakeaudience analysis, which testifies to the growing importance of new communication technolo-gies as a tool for evaluating communication results, compared to what was the case in 2004.

The overall picture appears less positive if one analyses the levels of communication that areevaluated. The results presented in Figure 5 indicate that attention is primarily focused on thoseshort-term evaluation tools, such as outputs, which show the degree of visibility reached by the

FIGURE 4 Methods of research used in the largest Italian companies.

61% 64% 67%61%

43%38%

Quantitative research Qualitative research Online monitoring

20082004

FIGURE 5 Evaluation tools used in the largest Italian companies.

91%87%

44%

55%60%

81%

Quantity ofmedia

coverage

Quality ofmedia

coverage

Recall ofmessage

Change instakeholders'

attitudes

Quality ofstakeholders'relationships

Quality ofcorporatereputation


organization. Measures widely adopted are the quantity of media placements (91%, n = 159) andthe quality of media exposure content (87%, n = 148).

Only 44% (n = 67) of companies adopt short-term evaluation tools that measure cognitiveeffects of communication such as message recall. Results show large Italian companies focustheir attention on short-term effects of communication by emphasizing evaluation of mediaexposure, but neglect the evaluation of the informative and persuasive aims of communicationprograms. On the other hand, 81% (n = 137) of companies measure achievement against one ofthe most significant organizational objectives, namely, the consolidation of corporate reputation.At the same time a smaller but significant volume of measurement activity is directed to thequality of stakeholders’ relationships (60%, n = 95). These results show that Italian communicationmanagers value and adopt the strategic use of evaluation research as a way to demonstrate thecontribution of corporate communication to organizational performance.

Furthermore, the focus on the evaluation of corporate reputation can be explained by the fact thatthis intangible asset enhances the economic value of the organization. By evaluating the effects oncorporate reputation, the communication managers’ role is further reinforced when the organiza-tional benefits of communication are demonstrated. Finally, more than half of the companies (55%,n = 85) evaluate the behavioral effects of corporate communication (outcomes), such as changes instakeholders’ attitudes towards the organization. The evaluation of outcomes represents an essentialintermediate step to demonstrate the contribution of communication to organizational objectives.

But, if evaluation occurs only at the most basic level (output) and at the most sophisticatedone (corporate reputation), focusing less on outcomes, we cannot say that the contribution toorganizational performance is evaluated rigorously from a methodological point of view.

The study shows that the largest Italian companies do not adequately assess the contributionof communication activity to organizational performance, even though the extensive use of sci-entific qualitative and quantitative tools seems to further the expansion of sound technical andmethodological competence among communication managers.

The expectations of the Italian respondents about the next three years are that investment inevaluation of communication will increase. In particular the evaluation of corporate reputation(65%) and of the quality of media coverage content (63%) will increase more than other items,as Figure 6 shows.

This trend can be judged positively for two main reasons. First, because the growing impor-tance of evaluation of corporate reputation shows that in the future communication will bedevoted to enhancing these intangible assets that are financially valuable to organizations. Second,because the efficacy of communication can be judged by evaluating which kind of organiza-tional messages have been broadcast by the media, with which degree of accuracy and with whattone. Communication managers are becoming more and more aware that the quantity of mediaexposure is not a sufficient indication of the efficacy of their work.

RELATION BETWEEN INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND EVALUATION OF COMMUNICATION

In the two preceding sections we have seen that, in large Italian companies, a process of institu-tionalization of the communication function is underway, as several empirical indicators show.We have also seen that diverse ways of evaluating communication are being used. If we now


wanted to test the hypothesis that the evaluation of communication furthers, or is related to, theprocess of institutionalization of communication, we must choose which indicators to employ.There is no doubt as to what indicators to look for regarding evaluation: all of the indicatorsrelated to the many evaluation tools must be considered, starting with those that measure themost basic results (output and outtake) to those that measure the most complex ones (outflow).

On the other hand, where the indicators of institutionalization are concerned, it appears wise tomake a choice, being aware that all of the indicators that were examined are strongly interrelatedand therefore there is no danger that contradictory results will emerge using one or another. It seemsappropriate, however, to use both the second indicator (“How influential is the communication man-ager”) and the third (“Does the communication manager play a strategic and reflective role”), disre-garding the first one (“Is the communication manager a CCO”), even though it seems to be the mostobjective.7 The reason is that the second and third indicators are able to give a more precise idea ofthe influence that communication can exercise on top management and on its strategic decisionmaking, and therefore on the process of institutionalization of the communication function.

If we examine the correlation between the two institutionalization variables and all of theevaluation indicators8 used by applying the Pearson correlation index, two very interesting over-all trends emerge from Figure 7.

7The first indicator, which indicates whether the communication manager is a CCO, is in fact only apparently moreobjective in indicating his or her influence on top management: this is because to be a CCO does not always mean beinga permanent member of the Executive Committee of the company, and not always having a say on the strategic decisionsof top management.

8The evaluation indicators used measure the respondents’ forecasts regarding the change that may occur for each ofthem over the next three years. The response options are based on a Likert five-point scale from 1 (Heavy increase) to 5(Heavy decrease).

FIGURE 6 Expectations about the rise of evaluation tools over the nextthree years.

53%

63%

49%54%

58%

65%

Quantity ofmedia

coverage

Quality ofmedia

coverage

Recall ofmessage

Change instakeholders'

attitudes

Quality ofstakeholders'relationships

Quality ofcorporatereputation


In fact, both in the case of the influence exercised by the communication manager on stra-tegic corporate decisions, and in the case of the presence of the strategic-reflective role, thereare significant and relevant correlations with the various indicators of evaluation employed.At the same time, however, a very important difference emerges. In the first case, the stron-gest correlations are with the most immediate, visibility-concerned evaluation levels (such asthe outputs and the outtakes), while in the second the strongest correlations are with the long-term evaluation indicators and those related to organizational performance (such as outcomeand outgrowth).

How can we interpret these differences? One possible interpretation of the first correlation isthat communication managers that use the most immediate tools gain a greater degree of atten-tion by top management. Therefore it can be said that these tools are used primarily to reach thisscope. This interpretation is consistent with the results of European research, which shows thatthere is a widespread use of the results of evaluation with persuasive and symbolic ends (CIPR& CDF, 2004; Metrica, 2002; PR News 2003).

On the other hand, an interpretation of the second correlation (that is between strategic activityand long-term, organizational performance-related parameters) is that communication managerstaking a strategic-reflective role feel the need and have the possibility of introducing and utilizingtools and evaluation criteria related to long-term goals (such as organizational performances) toa greater extent than their colleagues who do not have this role.

The various correlations between the evaluation indicators, from the most basic short-term tothe most complex long-term ones, with two important and different indicators of institutional-ization, conceptually demonstrate that the two phenomena, evaluation and institutionalization,are as complicated and multifaceted as the basic relationship between them.

At a practical level this correlation also shows that the consolidation of the institutionalizationof communication does not necessarily lead to the abandonment of the most basic and immediatemethods of evaluation. On the contrary, outcomes and outtakes continue to be important factorsaiding that process, even in the most evolved cases where the importance of communication isincreasingly playing a role in influencing top management’s strategic decision making.

FIGURE 7 Correlations between use of evaluation tools and indicatorsfor institutionalization (Pearson index).

0,13*

0,18*0,18*0,18*

0,24**0,25**

0,13* 0,14*

0,24**

0,10*

0,31** 0,30**

Quanti

ty of

media co

verag

e

Quality

ofmedia

cove

rage

Recall

of mes

sage

Chang

e insta

keho

lders'

attitu

des

Quality

of st

akeh

olders

' relat

ionsh

ips

Quality

ofco

rporat

e rep

utatio

n

*

**

Correlations with the influence of communication managers

Correlations with the strategic and reflective role

= p < 0,005

= p < 0,001


In other words, it would seem that communication managers need simple evaluationtools to convince top management that communication can bring good results. They can goon to more sophisticated if less immediate forms of evaluation, aimed at better understand-ing the results and more accurately pin-pointing their communication efforts, only afterhaving reached the goal of being listened to by top management and after gaining a strategic-reflective role.

The results that we have presented therefore seem to demonstrate that it is precisely the vari-ety of evaluation tools put together that can more thoroughly aid that complex phenomenon ofconsolidation of communication in organizations, which has been defined as institutionalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation is a key factor in the process of institutionalization of communication, which isunderway in major organizations. A survey involving those responsible for the communicationfunction in large Italian companies shows interesting results on how the criteria of evaluationand the process of institutionalization of communication evolve and, in particular, on the rela-tion existing between evaluation and institutionalization.

Communication is measured quite extensively in Italian companies. However, there is still apreference for the most basic (output) and for the most complex levels (outgrowth), rather thanfor the intermediate ones (outcomes).

Judging from the evolution of certain important indicators, such as “How seriously are thecommunication manager’s proposals taken by top management?” and “How widespread is thestrategic-reflective component of communication in the management of the organization’scorporate governance?” it becomes clear that there is a high degree of institutionalization of thecorporate communication function in Italy.

In regard to the relationship between evaluation and institutionalization, there is a positivecorrelation between the use of the various methods of evaluation and the fact that top manage-ment take the proposals of the communication managers seriously. It also emerges that in thosecases in which communication plays a strategic-reflective role, evaluation is more widespreadand there is a positive correlation between the two variables considered.

However, the most interesting aspect of the relation between evaluation and institutionalizationemerges from a more profound analysis of the relation between the various modes of evaluationand the two indicators of the process of institutionalization of communication. In fact, in therelationship between “How seriously does top management take the proposals of the communi-cation manager?” and the various forms of evaluation, the most basic forms prevail (output). Onthe other hand, in the relationship between the spread of the strategic-reflective component ofthe role of communication and the various forms of evaluation, the more complex ones gain theupper hand (outgrowth).

The conclusion that we can draw from the results that emerge from the evolution of evalua-tion of communication in Italian companies is that the various forms of evaluation can serve sideby side in various ways to aid the process of institutionalization of the communication function.In fact, not only the more complicated forms of evaluation but even the simplest ones can takeon an important role in the evolution of the complex process of institutionalization of communi-cation in corporations.


REFERENCES

Argenti P. A. (2007). Corporate communication (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Bhola, H. S. (1990). Evaluating literacy for development projects, programs and campaigns: Evaluation planning,

design and implementation, and utilization of evaluation results. Hamburg: Unesco Institute for Education.CIPR Chartered Institute of Public Relations & DTI Department of Trade and Industry (2003). Unlocking the potential

of public relations. London: CIPR.CIPR Chartered Institute of Public Relations & CDF Communication Directors’ Forum (2004). Best practices in the

measurement and reporting of public relations and ROI. London: CIPR.Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Fleisher C. S., & Mahaffy, D. M. (1997). A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Public Relations Management. Public

Relations Review, 23, 117–142.Fombrun C. J. (1996). Reputation. Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Press.Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Grunig J. E, & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Invernizzi, E. (2000). La comunicazione organizzativa: teorie, modelli e metodi. Milano: Giuffrè Editore.Invernizzi, E. (2004). Relazioni pubbliche e comunicazione aziendale. Sviluppo e organizzazione, 204, 70–78.Jablin F. M., & Putnam L. L. (Eds.) (2001). The new handbook of organizational communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Lautenbach, C. (2004): Seven steps to the board room seat – A communications performance management system developed

by Germany’s GPRA. Frankfurt: LautenbachSass.Leary, D. M. (2002): The measurement tree. The Measurement Standard, March 21, 2002 (available at: www.

themeasurementstandard.com/Issues/302/eng/learymeasuretree302.asp).Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2001). Managing community relationships to maximize mutual benefit. In R. L.

Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 527–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Lindenmann, W. K. (1993). An effective yardstick to measure public relations success. Public Relations Quarterly,

38(1), 7–10.Lindenmann, W. K. (2003). Guidelines for measuring the effectiveness of PR programs and activities. Gainesville, FL:

Institute for Public Relations.Macnamara, J. R. (1992). Research in public relations: a review of the use of evaluation and formative research. Asia-Pacific

Public Relations Journal, 1(2), 1–20.Macnamara, J. R. (2004). Return on investment (ROI) of PR & corporate communication. Paper presented at the IPR

Measurement Summit, Durham, NH.Metrica (2002). PR measurement, research and planning in the UK (Market Report). London: Metrica.Muzi Falconi, T. (2004). Le relazioni pubbliche nelle organizzazioni complesse. Milano: Lupetti editore.Noble, P. (1999). Towards an inclusive evaluation methodology. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

4, 14–23.Paine K. D., & Bender, D. H. (2001). A non-profit builds a dashboard that belongs in every boardroom: The habitat for

humanity case study. Gainesville; FL: Institute for Public Relations.PR News (2003). Attitudes toward public relations measurement & evaluation. A research report. Dallas, TX: Michaelson &

Company.Ritter, M. (2003). The use of balanced scorecards in the strategic management of corporate communication. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 8, 44–59.Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Swedish Public Relations Association (1996). Return on Communications. Stockholm: Swedish Public Relations

Association.Tixier, M. (1995). Appraising communication: Reality or utopia? International Public Relations Review, 18(3), 17–20.Van Riel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of corporate communication. London: Prentice Hall.Vos, M., & Schoemaker, H. (2004, June). Accountability of Communication Policy. Paper presented at the Bledcom

2004 conference, Bled, Slovenia.Watson, T. (1997). Measuring the success rate: Evaluating the PR process and PR programmes. In P. J. Kitchen (Ed.),

Principles and Practice of Public Relations (pp. 283–300). London: Chapman & Hall.


Watson, T. (2001). Integrating planning and evaluation: Evaluating public relations practice and public relationsprogrammes. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 259–269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Watson, T. (2005). ROI or evidence-based PR: The language of public relations evaluation, PRism, 3(1), 1–10.Watson, T., & Simmons, P. (2004). Public Relations Evaluation. Paper presented at the Australian New Zealand

Communication Association Conference, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.Wright, D., & Gaunt, R. (2004, Sept.). Examining International Differences in Communications Measurement. Paper

presented at the IPR Measurement Summit, Durham, NH.Xavier, R., Mehta, A., & Gregory, A. (2005). Evaluation in use: The practitioner view of effective evaluation. PRism,

4(2), 1–11.Zerfass, A. (2008). The corporate communication scorecard—A framework for managing and evaluating communication

strategies. In B. van Ruler, A. Tkalac Vercic, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public Relations Metrics: Research and Evaluation(pp. 139–153), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Institutionalization and Evaluation of Corporate Communication in Italian Companies

Documents

Transcript of Institutionalization and Evaluation of Corporate Communication in Italian Companies