Why is it that, despite decades of research, communications teams are still having an uphill battle in proving the value they create for an organisation?

In the Employee Engagement Research by the International Association of Business Communicators, released in July this year, 42% of the 900 communicators who responded from around the globe said they had faced budget cuts in the past 12 months, and a further 33% had weathered staff cuts as well.

And even with New Zealand business confidence bouncing back from a 15 month low, I would suggest that communicators here are also still feeling pretty vulnerable.

In times of change or crisis, organisations should be communicating more, not less.  So, it does make me wonder if,  despite all the management speak to the contrary, communications is still seen as a ‘nice to have’, rather than a ‘need to have’ in many private and public sector organisations. 

I find this a bizarre question to be asking.  Yes, I have a vested interest in promoting the importance of communications.  I’m not going to deny that.  But there some weighty stats to back up my passion.  Data abounds showing that communication done well makes a big difference to the bottom line.

The TowersWatson 2009/2010 Communication ROI Study Report is just one of many international studies over the decades to show the link between communications and business performance. That study found that effective employee communication is a leading indicator of financial performance and a driver of employee engagement – and companies that are highly effective communicators had a whopping 47 per cent higher total return to shareholders over the last five years, compared with the companies that were the least effective communicators.

What is not to love about those numbers? And surely, as communicators, numbers should be our weapon of choice against the doubting Harrys and Harriets around the top tables?

Now, I am no maths guru – not even close – I scraped through (what was then) Sixth Form math by the skin of my teeth and, when I was a journo, every time the Government’s Budget hit the desks in the newsroom I would feel slightly nauseous at the prospect of crunching all those numbers.

But, in my comms roles I have had an epiphany about numbers. In big organisations, I learned very quickly that making a commitment to measuring communications was my way to getting budget, more staff and getting to do the fun things, even through the downturns.  Measurement mattered because it focused us on performance and outcomes – things that were tangible to our senior management.

The importance of measurement was embraced wholeheartedly at the Inaugural  Evaluation and Measurement Forum, which I chaired in Wellington this week. But I was a little staggered that the stumbling block is still senior management, many of whom still seem to need convincing of the need to measure communications and why budget is required to measure well.

Comms measurement is most effective when it focuses on evaluating outcomes, not outputs.  Measuring the number of media clippings or whether they are positive or neutral is ok.  But what is the outcome of that material for a business strategy the organisation is seeking to achieve? 

I would just love to know how senior managers think they have a choice about measurement? 

Effective communication sustains meaningful engagement and builds trust. Those are critical factors in successful organisations, where business performance is improved through engaged staff who in turn, influence customer satisfaction, and ultimately, profit. Establishing whether the mechanisms being used are working effectively is surely a vital contributor to that success?