Ipsos Corporate Reputation

The Life of a Modern Communicator

Corporate communicators need to demonstrate a deep commercial understanding of the business issues their organisations face – this gives them credibility around the leadership table.
They operate in fast-moving and complex environments and need to be able to learn and adapt quickly.
Building strong relationships and networks with influencers and decision-makers (both internally and externally) is essential if they are to get things done.

There is little doubt that in the last 20 years we have witnessed the evolution of corporate communications from a predominantly PR orientated function to a more strategic all-encompassing management discipline.

This is in no small part due to the rise in the concept of the corporate brand – the idea that a company and what it stands for can provide added equity to its products and services as well as helping it to build relationships with a wide range of important internal and external stakeholders.

This change has led to the convergence of corporate strategy with corporate communications as companies seek to articulate their overriding purpose in a clear and compelling way.

What are the skills required by the modern corporate communicator?

Reputation Council members are adamant that the corporate communications function (or, more broadly speaking, corporate affairs) needs to be part of the strategic planning process. In other words, effective communications strategies can only be developed when senior communicators have an in-depth understanding of the business issues their organisations face:

"IF YOU ARE DEFINING A POLICY OF A BUSINESS… YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS MODEL."
"BUSINESS PARTNERING... AND WITHIN BUSINESS PARTNERING I WOULD LOOK AT HAVING A DEEP KNOWLEDGE OF THE BUSINESS YOU ARE WORKING WITH."
"IN MY VIEW THE BEST ORGANISATIONS ARE INCLUDING THEIR COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORS OR CORPORATE AFFAIRS DIRECTORS IN THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT KEY BUSINESS DECISIONS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING."

However, many respondents also felt strongly that broader business knowledge was not the only priority for today’s communicator. So-called ‘soft skills’ including empathy, judgement, flexibility, sincerity and enthusiasm were seen as vitally important in gaining the respect and support of colleagues and external stakeholders alike:

"FIRST OF ALL AN OPEN MIND AND CURIOSITY ARE IMPORTANT THINGS; FLEXIBILITY AND THE ABILITY TO COPE WITH A RAPIDLY CHANGING ENVIRONMENT."
"FLEXIBILITY, ADAPTABILITY, CURIOSITY AND CONFIDENCE."
"AN EAGERNESS AND HUNGER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BIG ISSUES ARE AND ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THEM IN SIMPLE TERMS… A GOOD DEGREE OF INTELLIGENCE, EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE… AN INQUISITIVE NATURE."
Ultimately it’s about being seen as a trusted advisor

There was a clear consensus amongst Council members that the ultimate goal for most communicators was to be seen by the CEO and leadership team as a trusted advisor. The reason being that when this status is achieved it provides a powerful ‘platform’ for the effective co-ordination of reputation management activities – both internally and externally:

"IN MY VIEW THE BEST ORGANISATIONS ARE INCLUDING THEIR COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORS OR CORPORATE AFFAIRS DIRECTORS IN THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT KEY BUSINESS DECISIONS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING."
"THAT TRUSTED ADVISOR ROLE IS VERY IMPORTANT: IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU GIVE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STEER TO THE BOARD, THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE."
"YOU NEED TO HAVE AN EAR AT THE TOP TABLE. I WOULDN’T NECESSARILY SAY YOU NEED TO HAVE A SEAT AT IT, BUT YOU DEFINITELY NEED AN EAR AT THE TOP TABLE, SO A STRONG RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, FINANCE DIRECTOR AND KEY MEMBERS OF THE C-SUITE. IDEALLY YOU WANT TO HAVE CONTROL OVER DIFFERENT LEVERS WITHIN THE REPUTATION TOOL KIT."
There’s no such thing as an average working day

Although it may well be a claim made by many functions within the corporate environment, there is no doubt that most Council members wholeheartedly believe that the average working day does not exist for them. The predominant view being that the nature of the corporate communications function within a global organisation means “that most of my days do not end up where I thought they were going to end at all.”

Council members work an average 60-hour week (not including periodic monitoring of emails over the weekend, which 88% of Council members do). This covers activity within the head office environment but also conference calls with colleagues from markets in different time zones. To varying degrees, respondents divide their time between planning activities (strategy development, meetings with communication colleagues and other functions such as HR, campaign development, etc.) and responding to internal requests as well as unexpected external events (including potentially damaging issues):

"THERE IS NO AVERAGE DAY! EVERY DAY IS DIFFERENT AND THROWS UP DIFFERENT ISSUES, THE ABILITY TO MULTITASK AND SPIN A LOT OF PLATES AT THE SAME TIME AND THAT IS DRIVEN BY THIS HYPER-CONNECTIVITY OF EVERYTHING."
"I WORK WITH A PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE ROLE. THE PROACTIVE SIDE IS WHAT I DO TO MAKE THE COMPANY APPEAR SOMEWHERE, CONVEYING A MESSAGE. THE REACTIVE PART IS WHAT I DO WHEN SOMETHING APPEARS IN THE MEDIA, A REPUTATION CRISIS. THIS IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT IS UNEXPECTED. YOU NEED TO ACT AT A MOMENT’S NOTICE."
"THERE IS NO AVERAGE DAY, THAT’S THE EXCITING BIT ABOUT WORKING IN COMMUNICATIONS. NO DAY IS LIKE THE NEXT. A CHALLENGE BUT ALSO EXCITING."
Single biggest frustration

In many cases the size and complexity of the organisation they work for lies at the heart of many of the frustrations cited by Council members. Specific issues mentioned include the relatively slow pace at which change can be achieved, the difficulty of gaining access to the right people and the challenges in aligning messages throughout the organisation:

"THE MOST FRUSTRATING THING IS NOT BEING ABLE TO GET HOLD OF THE PEOPLE YOU WANT TO TALK TO, WHATEVER THE REASON. THEY MIGHT BE AVOIDING YOU OR THEY ARE TOO BUSY."
"TO CREATE THE GUIDELINES AND POLICIES NEEDED TO REACH OUR LONG-TERM GOALS IS DIFFICULT. IT IS A CHALLENGE TO MAKE SURE WE STICK TO OUR VISION AND THAT EVERYBODY IN OUR ORGANISATION UNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS."
"INTERNAL BUREAUCRACY – THE LENGTH OF TIME IT TAKES TO GET THINGS DONE."

Other frustrations include lack of resources and budget relative to the deliverables expected and lack of understanding or unrealistic expectations of the communications function – “expectation that communications can solve unsolvable problems”.

Final thoughts

It’s clear Council members believe the corporate communications function has never been more important to the long-term performance and health of the organisations they work for, although it is also clear that the function is highly scrutinised for evidence of its impact on business performance.

Indeed, there are some individuals within the corporate environment who are still to be convinced that it should sit alongside other support functions such as HR and Marketing.

However, what is not in doubt is the determination of Reputation Council members to maintain the momentum that has driven communications and reputation management higher up the corporate agenda.

Methodology: 127 interviews conducted with Reputation Council members between April and August 2017.

Read more from the Reputation Council...

Read more from the Ipsos Corporate Reputation Team...

Unlocking the Value of Reputation: Full Report

THE DEFINITIVE LINK BETWEEN CORPORATE REPUTATION AND BETTER BUSINESS EFFICIENCY

Looking to make your company run more effectively and efficiently?

Management teams around the world face a variety of complex business situations daily. A great place to start boosting your business is by leveraging the power of your reputation.

Ipsos Global Reputation Centre research across 31 countries shows conclusive proof of the relationship between a good reputation and better business efficiency.

Our research explores:

BUILDING TRUST GIVES COMPANIES AN ADVANTAGE IN TELLING THEIR STORY IN TIMES OF CRISIS, MARKETING THEIR PRODUCTS EFFICIENTLY, AND TURNING STAKEHOLDERS INTO ADVOCATES.

Reputation and trust are powerful forces in business efficiency.

The social media landscape may be changing how people interact with companies. There may be regulatory issues impacting some sectors more than others. You may be doing business in a region that’s inherently more skeptical than the rest of the world.

But the bottom line remains the same: building trust builds reputation. And having a good reputation will result in better business efficiency.

Methodology: The latest wave of the Ipsos Global Reputation Monitor, conducted in September 2017, measured attitudes of more than 23,000 consumers from 31 countries toward 66 companies across nine industries.

Read more from 'Unlocking the Value of Reputation'...

Read more from the Ipsos Global Reputation Centre...

The link between trust, reputation and benefit of the doubt

BUILDING TRUST BUILDS REPUTATION. A GOOD REPUTATION BUILDS BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, AND ENSURES YOUR VOICE IS HEARD IN A CRISIS.

Trust matters. When you trust someone, you give them the benefit of the doubt. If that person gets in trouble, you will hear their side of the story before jumping to conclusions.

Companies seek to build the same benefit of the doubt among their stakeholders. Without a strong reputation, companies risk not having a receptive audience for their story when they need one the most.

Globally, people are generally willing to give companies the benefit of the doubt (24% definitely and 48% probably). This willingness to give the benefit of the doubt is tightly linked to overall trust.

Among people who trust a company a great deal, more than half (59%) say they would definitely give that company the benefit of the doubt in a crisis. Among people who are feel neutral toward a company, that percentage shrinks to just 10%.

How benefit of the doubt varies by industry

The imperative to build a strong reputation to get the benefit of the doubt is greatest in high risk sectors. However, EVERY company has risk and can obtain a competitive advantage by building a reputation that they can draw on in times of trouble.

At the industry level, technology companies are much more likely to get the benefit of the doubt than others. Highly regulated industries are viewed more skeptically.

Globally, technology and automotive companies have the strongest reputations and consequently the strongest benefit of the doubt.

Benefit of the doubt and trust are highly correlated. When companies build trust, they are building up benefit of the doubt.

The link between trust and benefit of the doubt are most tightly related at the ends of the spectrum - companies with the best reputation get the most benefit of the doubt, and least trusted companies generate very little benefit of the doubt. Companies in the middle (trust-wise), have more variance when it comes to getting the benefit of the doubt.

Airlines, telecommunications, and oil and gas companies have the greatest challenges.

How benefit of the doubt varies by region

Overall, Europeans are more skeptical of companies, while Latin Americans are more likely to give companies the benefit of the doubt.

Generally, a majority of people in every region say they would “probably” give companies the benefit of the doubt during times of crisis. This likelihood to extend the benefit of the doubt is why it is so important for companies to make sure they react appropriately to crises. An over-reaction due to a few hard-core skeptics can cause more harm than good. Companies need to remember that they generally have the benefit of the doubt and should therefore be forthcoming, rather than defensive.

Skeptical Europeans are a tougher audience than people from other parts of the world.

The impact of regulation on trust and benefit of the doubt

Oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications companies face the greatest amount of regulatory risk, and have the lowest trust and benefit of the doubt scores. While risk is also high for insurance and banking, there is also some evidence of people feeling these industries are over-regulated.

The desire for regulation is highest in Europe and North America, and lowest in APAC.

Methodology: The latest wave of the Ipsos Global Reputation Monitor, conducted in September 2017, measured attitudes of more than 23,000 consumers from 31 countries toward 66 companies across nine industries.

Read more from 'Unlocking the Value of Reputation'...

Read more from the Ipsos Global Reputation Centre...