Institutionalizing Strategic Communication in Europe – An Ideal Home or a Mad House? Evidence from a Survey in 37 Countries

Abstract

Is strategic communication becoming an established discipline of practice across Europe? Is it in turn becoming institutionalized? And do we mean establishing a renowned practice at the heart of organizational operation? This article aims to address these questions while paying attention to the negative implications some of the terminology has in the English language. Institution is also the label given to prisons, hospitals and other physical structures that are used in society to organize and control groups of people. The article finds evidence that communication managers are not frustrated “inmates” but rather liberated and respected practitioners who are establishing themselves as permanent and necessary fixtures within the organizational infrastructure. As a consequence these practitioners and departments are becoming entwined parts of the organization and therefore institutionalized. Evidence is presented from data collected from 37 European countries from a sample of over 1,500 communication managers.

INTRODUCTION

Institutionalization is a loaded label in the English language. The term “institution” is used loosely and often to describe large organizations – both public and private. It applies to business, commerce, social and political organizations. It is also a negative, weighted euphemism for order and constraint. The most obvious example encapsulated in cinematography was the mental institution (hospital) where Jack Nicholson's character (McMurphy) was housed in ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest’ (Director Milos Forman, 1975). It is in this context that we need to deconstruct the term, its meaning and interpretation for strategic communication. ¹ It is also important to do this to understand its positioning within organizations from a European perspective. This paper aims to do this and provide insights and interpretations of senior communication managers from across Europe on their role, function and ‘departmental’ (functional) integration within their organization or company.

In the article we are referring to the role of communication managers in established and defined profit and non profit organizations who are managing formal communications on behalf of those organizations. Data will be presented and discussed to explore the evidence of strategic communication and public relations' position within organizations and whether this is manifesting itself in increased institutionalization and which effects this is bringing. The paper aims to answer the questions “are communication managers frustrated ‘inmates’ of an institution or rather liberated and respected practitioners who are establishing themselves as permanent and necessary fixtures within the organizational infrastructure?” This then leads to the question ‘are those practitioners and departments becoming entwined parts of the institution (organization) and therefore institutionalized?’

As suggested, institutionalization has multiple meaning in day-to-day life. These variances are mirrored in academic debates. Sandhu (2009) usefully defines institutionalization as “a permanent establishment of a certain rule or fact which is not questioned continously. But institutionalization has an in-built dichotomy: it can be analyzed as a process and as an outcome.” Origins of the debates on institutionalization in the social sciences go back to Weber (1922) and have only recently emerged in discussions about public relations and communication and its relative position within organizations (Bartlett, Tywoniak, & Hatcher, 2007; Lammers & Barbour, 2006; Wæraas, 2007; Wakefield, 2008; Wehmeier, 2006). The motivation for these debates is often about legitimacy and appears rooted in aspirant outcomes of positioning the discipline and practice as effectively gaining a more powerful (dominant) position in organizations and by extension society.

RESEARCH – THE EUROPEAN COMMUNICATION MONITOR

So what can research into practitioner viewpoints tell us? It is evident that in the last decade communication management research in Europe, particularly research from a public relations perspective, has produced a range of theories and insights into the practice of the profession in various countries. However, several barriers (different languages, academic cultures, lack of pan-European associations and databases in the field) have limited the possibility to draw an overall picture of the structure and developments of communication management in Europe. As part of the move to overcome this lack of understanding one of the first studies that documented the structures of communication management in the ‘old world’ from a broad perspective was the country by country research Ebok Project (Van Ruler & Verčič, 2004).

The Ebok Project was developed by academics from several countries within the framework of the European Public Relations Research and Education Association (Euprera). It used qualitative methodology to analyze the evolution of theory, practice and education of public relations in different states. Recently, another Euprera initiative started to identify current challenges and future developments of public relations in Europe. The European Communication Monitor (ECM) was published for the first time in 2007 (Zerfass, Van Ruler, Rogojinaru, Verčič, & Hamrefors, 2007). This article introduces and discusses the findings of the most recent, second edition of the ECM survey (Zerfass, Moreno, Tench, Verčič, & Verhoeven, 2008) in the context of debates around institutionalization of communication management.

Design and Research Questions

The ECM 2008 project was run and advised by professors from 10 countries. To date it is the most comprehensive analysis of the European market with more than 1,500 participating professionals from 37 countries. It is an extended quantitative research project which 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. To achieve these objectives, a number of research questions were formulated. These were defined as follows:

RQ1: What is the expected annual growth of resources for strategic communication, public relations or communication management?

RQ2: What is the role of strategic communication in management decisions?

RQ3: Which are the more important fields of practice today and in the near future?

RQ4: What are the reasons for cooperation between organizations and PR agencies?

RQ5: Which are the more important channels and instruments for communication management today and in the near future?

RQ6: Which emerging interactive channels are more relevant?

RQ7: For which areas of communication are online videos more relevant?

RQ8: What will be the most relevant issues for communication management in the near future?

RQ9: What kind of evaluation do practitioners use to assess the effectiveness of communication management?

RQ10: What is the level of involvement of strategic communication and communication management practitioners in CSR?

RQ11: What are the motivations of organizations for (engaging with) CSR?

RQ12: Which are the main aspects of CSR for organization's communication?

RQ13: Which intercultural aspects are challenges for communication management today and in the near future?

Methodology

The research involved a detailed, macro online survey targeting public relations and communication management practitioners who were actively working in agencies and departments in public and private sector organizations (e.g., joint stock companies, private companies, governmental organizations and nonprofit organizations). The sample included representatives from all of these groups for the ECM 2008 survey.

The questionnaire was constructed in English and pretested by more than twenty experts from practice and academia from different European countries. The questionnaire consisted of 14 items, several of them including different questions. Each question allowed multiple answers and seven items were measured using an ordinal level scale from 1 – 5 or 1 – 7. Four items refer to the development and status of the profession; three consider the instruments and channels of communication management; six focused on the more relevant current issues and the last one explored the socio-demographic profile of participants.

The survey was delivered via e-mail, together with a personal invitation to more than 20,000 European communication professionals, using the database of the only trans-European branch magazine Communication Director. Additional invitations to participate were sent via national branch associations and networks. More than 3,000 respondents contacted the survey, but not all of them fully completed questionnaires. For consistency replies from participants not currently working in communication management or those from academics and students, were filtered out and removed. The final response rate of fully completed replies was 1,524 communication professionals.

This represents a 7.6% (n = 1,524) response from the overall population of communication professionals in the database of approximately 20,000 practitioners. Although this may not initially appear a high rate there are a number of important factors which do support generalization from the findings. Firstly 15% of the population contacted the survey but not all completed and only complete responses were used in the final analysis. Furthermore the database did include academics, students and others engaged with communications but who were not functioning organizational communications managers – the focus of the research. These responses were therefore removed from the final used population for the data analysis.

The composition of the sample was 54.8% (n = 835) female and 45.2% (n = 688) male with an average age of 39.4 years. The largest group of respondents (45.3%, n = 690) have being working in communication management and public relations for more than 10 years. The second largest group (24.2%, n = 368) have an experience level of between 6 and 10 years; followed by those with up to three years of experience (16.2%, n = 246) and those with four to five years of experience (14.3%, n = 217). Participants work in 37 different European states divided into regions in the following way: Northern Europe (e.g., Norway, United Kingdom, Latvia) – 22.2% (n = 338); Western Europe (e.g., Germany, Netherlands, France) – 50.3% (n = 766); Southern Europe (e.g., Italy, Slovenia, Croatia) – 15.9% (n = 242); Eastern Europe (e.g. Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria) – 11.0% (n = 167) and Other – 0.6% (n = 9).

From the 1,524 participants, 67.4% (n = 1027) work in communication departments/press offices in organizations and 32.6% (n = 496) in communication consultancies or public relations agencies, or as freelancers (independent, self-employed workers). From those who work in departments in an organization 27.9% (n = 425) work for a joint stock company, 12.1% (n = 184) for a government-owned organization or institution and 9.5% (n = 144) for a nonprofit organization.

The questionnaire answers were processed using SPSS. A statistical, descriptive and analytical analysis has been applied to the data, considering ordinal scales as being interval scales where possible and appropriate. Results have been statistically agreed by ANOVA tests and were classified as highly significant (p ≤ 0.001) or weakly significant (0.001 < p ≤ 0.05).

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

In the aftermath of the excellence studies (J. E. Grunig, 1992; Dozier, L. A. Grunig, & J. E. Grunig, 1995; L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) into the function, the role and the position of public relations and communication management in an organization, J. E. Grunig (2006, p. 151) concluded that “the greatest challenge for scholars now is to learn how to institutionalize strategic public relations as an ongoing, accepted practice in most organizations.” Strategic communication should be institutionalized, he added, as a bridging activity between the organization and its stakeholders and this attitude of communication as a bridging activity should become standard procedure in every organization. Institutionalization here is understood as a process where communication becomes an integral and self-evident part of the strategic management of an organization.

This view of institutionalization fits with what, in organizational sociology, has become known as an “institutionalized thought structure” (Warren, Rose, & Bergunder, 1974, p. 191), a complex of agreed upon values, norms and opinions within organizations (Warren et al., 1974), in this case about communication. Such a view of institutionalization is also in line with the so-called new institutionalism, where the processes by which certain practices become adapted by more and more organizations in a particular field, is the central focus of study (Heimer, 1999; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Certain practices then, for example law or in this case communication, become conditional for obtaining societal legitimacy for the activities of an organization and therefore start to be a normal part of the functioning of the organization. This new institutionalism is usually opposed to the old institutionalism where the focus of study was the process by which certain organizations became institutionalized in a society (Heimer, 1999, 2001).

Institutionalization can, however, also be studied from the perspective of collective patterns in human behavior in general (Zijderveld, 2000). In this broader anthropological and sociological view (see also Lammers & Barbour, 2006; Waeraas, 2007; Sandhu, 2009) institutionalization is not directly connected to organizations or activities within organizations, instead it is defined as

the historical process in which initially individual and subjective behavior (such as the unity of acting, thinking and feeling) is imitated, and then repeated in time to such an extent that it develops into a collective and objective pattern of behavior, which in its turn exerts a stimulating and controlling influence on subsequent individual and subjective actions, thoughts and feelings. This creates taken-for-granted routines that may clear the way for the design of new actions, thoughts and feelings, if, that is, these routines do not fossilize into stifling expressions of traditionalism. (Zijderveld, 2000, pp. 31–32)

This broad view of institutionalization is compatible with the theory of structuration (Giddens, 1984), which proposes that social structures make social action possible, and at the same time social action creates those very structures. This sociological standpoint is at the root of modern theories of organizational communication (Falkheimer, 2007; Poole & McPhee, 2005) and corporate communication (Zerfass, 2008).

Institutionalization as explained by Zijderveld (2000) is the basis for the model of reflective communication management as formulated by Van Ruler and Verčič (2005). It takes a reflective view on the organization meaning that the organization is being looked upon from a public sphere or a societal point of view. In this approach organizations are also viewed as societal institutions and not primarily as economic administrative entities. For communication management the main concerns are the public legitimation of the organization and the public license to operate. Communication specialists should be able to counsel and coach managers in organizations on how reality is constructed in the society the organization is part of. The tasks of communication professionals in this model can be derived from the four characteristics that European public relations experts see as inclusive of communication management (Van Ruler & Verčič, 2002a, 2002b): (1) counseling the members of an organization on matters of values, norms and issues important to society, (2) coaching the members of an organization to respond communicatively to societal demands, (3) conceptualizing and planning communication with important publics to gain public trust and (4) executing communication plans. Counseling is the fundamental role of the professional; the other roles follow from that. Reflective communication management therefore leads to the following parameters for the profession, included in the four roles:

Communication management as a specialty helps organizations by: counseling the deliberations on legitimacy; by coaching its members in the development of their communicative competencies; by conceptualizing communication plans; and by executing communication means using informational, persuasive, relational and discursive interventions (Van Ruler & Verčič, 2005, p. 265).

Within the perspective of reflective communication management the other well-known models of communication management (information, persuasion, relation building and dialogue) are seen as possible strategies depending on the situation.

The reflective approach of communication management opens up the possibility to look at institutionalization of strategic communication from the broad perspective of collective patterns of behavior of communication professionals as described in the definition above. Considering the results of the European Communication Monitor 2008 in the light of the different theoretical perspectives on institutionalization of strategic communication, we can answer the questions whether a collective pattern of behavior of European communication professionals is visible and if it is, what this collective pattern of behavior achieves in organizations around the continent.

Focus on Mediated Communication

The ECM 2008 survey shows that a strong collective pattern of behavior in the field of strategic communication is the management of all kinds of mediated communication. In the executing role (see Table 1 for the measurement of different roles) of strategic communication addressing print media is, on a 5-point scale, considered to be the most important communication channel (M = 4.13, SD = 0.94), followed by mediated forms of communication such as online communication (M = 3.65, SD = 0.95) and addressing online media (M = 3.39, SD = 0.98), organizing events (M = 3.38, SD = 1.02), addressing radio and television (M = 3.37, SD = 1.21), editing and publishing corporate media (M = 3.13, SD = 1.01), creating and addressing online social networks (M = 2.98, SD = 1.12), paid information (M = 2.83, SD = 1.11) and sponsorships (M = 2.70, SD = 1.14). All kinds of new forms of online communication, such as Wikis, RSS feeds, podcasts, online videos, weblogs and virtual worlds are considered to be less important. These new forms of mediated communication all scored below an average of 2.7 on a 5-point scale.

TABLE 1. Measurement of Professional Roles of Communication Managers

Theoretical concept	Construct	Item	Question
Counseling roleAnalyzing and counseling about values, norms and issues	Influence on management	Taken serious (seriousness)	How seriously are communication recommendations taken by senior management? (7 point scale)
		Reputational considerations	To what extent are communication and reputational considerations factored into strategic decision making and planning? (7 point scale)
	Social responsibility	Involvement in CSR	What is your level of involvement in CSR in the organization? (5 point scale)
		Motivation for CSR	Which are the main drivers for CSR within your organization? (5 point scale)
		CSR communication	Which aspects of CSR are in the focus of communication? (pick 3 out of 9 aspects)
	Intercultural level	European integration	Please assess the importance of challenges for communication concerning European integration today and in 2011. (5 point scale)
Coaching roleEducate organization members to behave competently in communication	Development of the field	Strategic communication issues	Please pick 3 issues that will become relevant for communication within the next three years (pick 3 out of 12 or specify another issue)
Conceptualizing roleDevelop communication plans and build relationships to gain trust	Development of sub disciplines	Importance of fields of practice	How important are the following fields today and in 2011? (5 point scale)
Executing rolePrepare the means of communication and help prepare the communication	Communication channels and instruments	Importance of channels and instruments	How important are the following communication channels and instruments today and in 2011? (5 point scale)
		Emerging interactive channels	Please assess the following interactive tools for today and next year (5 point scale)
		On line videos	Please pick the three most important areas in communication for online videos (pick 3 out of 6 or specify another area)
	Research	Evaluation	Which items do you monitor or measure to asses the effectiveness of communication? (5 point scale)
Source: Theoretical concept (roles) adapted from Van Ruler & Verčič, 2005.

The importance of mediated communication in the day-to-day practice of strategic communication professionals is also reflected in the use of research and evaluation tools. Research into news coverage about the organization or about issues concerning the organization is the most widely used evaluation tool (M = 4.37, SD = 1.05) in combination with monitoring the use of Internet and Intranet by internal and external stakeholders (M = 3.69, SD = 1.16). These results of ECM 2008 show that evaluation and communication controlling is first and foremost concentrated on the output of the communication activities in all kinds of media. Second, the research activities are concentrated on monitoring the outcome of communication activities by following whether stakeholders understand the key messages of the organization (M = 3.19, SD = 1.24) and how attitudes and behavior of stakeholders change (M = 2.83, SD = 1.25). The outflow level of research activities is third in importance in research activities for example by evaluating the reputation of the organization in the form of a reputation index or brand value (M = 2.74, SD = 1.33) or monitoring the business goals (M = 2.81, SD = 1.36). Of least importance are the input items of communication management, i.e. monitoring the internal workflow or process quality (M = 2.73, SD = 1.26) and the media production costs (M = 2.65, SD = 1.29).

On the level of the conceptualizing role of strategic communication professionals and the way they organize communication activities in disciplines and fields of practice, the dominance of mediated communication is also visible. Marketing/brand and consumer communication (M = 3.70, SD = 1.04) are considered to be the most important fields of practice closely followed by corporate communication (M = 3.68, SD = 0.97). These dominant specializations are complemented with consecutively crisis and issues management (M = 3.21, SD = 1.15); internal communication and change management (M = 3.16, SD = 1.08); public affairs/lobbying (M = 3.06, SD = 1.17); international communication (M = 3.06, SD = 1.14); sustainability and corporate social responsibility (M = 3.05, SD = 1.08); investor relations (M = 2.99, SD = 1.37); and the least importance is given to personal coaching and training of management and other employees of the organization (M = 2.84, SD = 1.06).

Extended Practices and Roles

Beside the dominance of mediated communication in strategic communication management there are also signs that other forms of communication are gaining ground. The European professionals also give high importance to face-to-face communication (M = 3.59, SD = 1.08) and to a lesser extent to forms of non-verbal communication (M = 2.72, SD = 1.06), such as appearance of people and architecture of buildings. This fits the coaching role of strategic communication professionals. This coaching role does not seem to be developed very much yet, given the low score of personal coaching as a field of practice (M = 2.84, SD = 1.06). Although respondents rank personal coaching as the least important discipline of strategic communication, at the same time they consider linking business strategy with communication (46%, n = 701) and dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility (41%, n = 624), as the two most important strategic issues for the field. This indicates that the coaching role of strategic communication professionals is growing.

In the counseling role about 35% (n = 533) of the professionals see corporate social responsibility as a relevant field of practice for strategic communication and almost 73% (n = 1,112) of the professionals are involved in corporate social responsibility activities. Strategic communication professionals also see intercultural communication as a field of importance. Traditional activities such as lobbying in Brussels (28%, n = 426) are today considered of less importance than intercultural communication in and between European countries (30%, n = 457) and working in intercultural communication teams (35%, n = 533).

Collective Patterns Prove Institutionalization

Looking from the broad sociological view of institutionalization combined with the model of reflective communication management we can conclude that the European Communication Monitor 2008 definitely shows that a collective pattern of behavior of strategic communication professionals exists in Europe. This collective pattern shows, among others, a strong component of management of mediated communication and involvement in corporate social responsibility combined with a coaching role that is not yet developed very well. From the perspective of the theory of new institutionalism the question now is to what extent these institutionalized patterns of behavior have become an institutionalized thought structure (Warren et al., 1974) in the organizations where the respondents work.

To measure this institutionalized thought structure two indicators are used in the European Communication Monitor 2008: the extent to which strategic communication recommendations are taken seriously by senior management (seriousness) and the extent to which these recommendations and reputational considerations are factored into strategic decision making and planning in the organization (reputational consideration).

Seriousness and reputational considerations both score well. The majority of respondents (75%, n = 1,143) of the respondents feel that they are taken seriously by senior management (M = 5.25, SD = 1.30) and 64% (n = 975) are actually involved in strategic planning and decision making (M = 4.81, SD = 1.39). ANOVA statistics indicate that on the issue of seriousness there is a significant difference between professionals in joint stock companies on the one hand and professionals in private companies, government organizations and non profit organizations on the other hand (F(4, 1519) = 8.048, p < .05). Communication professionals in joint stock companies (M = 5.47, SD = 1.21, n = 425) feel they have higher scores on seriousness than the professionals in the other types of organizations, respectively professionals working in non profit organizations (M = 5.04, SD = 1.40, n = 145), government owned organizations (M = 5.01, SD = 1.35, n = 185), or private companies not on the stock market (M = 5.01, SD = 1.48, n = 272). Furthermore communication professionals in private companies (M = 4.56, SD = 1.38, n = 425) score significantly lower on reputational consideration than the professionals in joint stock companies (M = 4.96, SD = 1.51, n = 272) and consultants (M = 4.90, SD = 1.27, n = 497) (F(4, 1519) = 4.664, p < .05).

There is also a statistically significant difference in scores on seriousness between men and woman on a 7-point scale. Women (M = 5.11, SD = 1.33, n = 835) score significantly lower than men (M = 5.42, SD = 1.23, n = 689) on seriousness (t = -4.658, p < .001), and they also differ significantly on reputational considerations suggesting that women perceive their recommendations and reputational considerations to having less impact on the strategic decision making and planning of the organization (M = 4.72, SD = 1.41, n = 835) than men (M = 4.93, SD = 1.36, n = 689) do (t = -2.997, p < .01). This is an important finding and worthy of deeper exploration and understanding beyond the ECM survey through further research. Professionals with more than ten years of experience score significantly better on seriousness (M = 5.42, SD = 1.27, n = 691) than professionals with less than five years of experience (M = 5.10, SD = 1.30, n = 833), (F = (4, 1519) = 10.521, p < .05). For reputational considerations the boundary is less than four years of experience (M = 4.62, SD = 1.44, n = 465) as opposed to more than four years of experience (M = 4.90, SD = 1.36, n = 1059) (F(4, 1519) = 5,439, p < .05).

Geographically there are also significant differences. Professionals in Northern Europe report significant higher levels of seriousness (M = 5.01, SD = 1.33, n = 339) than professionals in Eastern (M = 4.40, SD = 1.54, n = 167) and Southern Europe (M = 4.77, SD = 1.47, n = 243), and there is also a significant difference between Western (M = 4.83, SD = 1.35, n = 767) and Southern Europe (F = (3, 1512) = 11.930, p < .05). The same significant differences are reported on the reputational considerations (F = (3, 1512) = 7.363, p < .05) between Northern Europe (M = 5.44, SD = 1.21, n = 339), Eastern (M = 4.77, SD = 1.42, n = 167) and Southern Europe (M = 5.09, SD = 1.34, n = 243) as well as between Western (M = 5,32, SD = 1.42, n = 767) and Southern Europe.

Not surprisingly, seriousness and reputational considerations are highly correlated (r = .71, p < .01). Moreover, seriousness is weakly correlated with the level of involvement in corporate social responsibility (r = .23, p < .01) and also weakly correlated with the importance of intercultural communication (r = .13, p < .01). The correlations between reputational considerations and corporate social responsibility and intercultural communication are weakly correlated in the same order of magnitude (r = .20, p < .01 and r = .20, p >.01 respectively). The indicator seriousness correlates weakly to moderately with almost all the variables from the executing and conceptualizing role with only two exceptions: the use of new media instruments wiki's and weblogs do not correlate significant with being taken seriously by senior management. Taking the recommendations and reputational considerations into account of strategy and planning also correlates weakly to moderately tot the same variables, in this case with one exception: the use of virtual worlds as a communication channel is not correlated to this indicator.

On the level of the counseling role of strategic communication the correlations raise the question of causality; are recommendations taken seriously because of the practices professionals recommend and execute or are the practices a result of the recommendations and strategic deliberations? The data of this European Communication Monitor can not provide an answer for that and so this will be an interesting question for further research.

EUROPEAN COMMUNICATION TRENDS AND PRACTICE

ECM 2008 shows that strategic communication today, looking from a broad perspective of institutionalization, contains collective patterns of behavior of professionals working in the field. The results of the survey also show that strategic communication is well integrated as part of European organizations, that it is taken seriously and that the majority of the organizations take arguments and recommendations of strategic communication into account for policymaking. Strategic communication clearly is by that an “institutionalized thought structure” (Warren et al., 1974) in many European organizations today. From the questions on future trends the respondents of the survey expect that the importance of many aspects of strategic communication will increase further in the years to come until 2011.

As an aspect of the counseling role of strategic communication professionals intercultural communication is considered to become more important in the coming years. All elements of intercultural communication are scored significantly higher (p < .001) for 2011 than for 2008. Intercultural communication within and between European and non-European countries and also working in intercultural teams are considered to be the most important challenges in this field (respectively an increase of 4.2%, 3.6% and 3.2% above the average increase of all the aspects of intercultural communication, being 30.8%).

In the conceptualizing role of strategic communication professionals the results show that corporate communication as a discipline and field of practice will become the most important field of communication management by 2011, taking over the lead from marketing/brand and consumer communication. Internal communication and change management will gain importance as well in the coming years, together with communication about sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Those two fields have the highest score in gaining importance compared to the average increase (+ 11% and + 8% increase above the average increase of importance of all the disciplines and fields of practice of 28% between today and 2011, respectively) and therefore can be considered the fastest-growing disciplines within communication management in Europe. Although the importance of all disciplines will increase significantly (p < .001) public affairs, crisis management and investor relations will relatively lose ground.

This study shows the institutionalized practice of strategic communication is largely a practice of mediated communication. In the coming years professionals expect the relative position of the different communication channels to change in the direction of more importance for online communication. Here again all the channels are considered to gain significant importance until 2011 (p < .001), though relatively (compared to the average change) online social media, press and media relations with online media, online communication in general and, strikingly, face to face communication are expected to change the most (respectively 26.2%, 26.0%, 16.8% and 1.8% above the average increase of 16.8% in importance of all the communication channels between today and 2011). The strongest decrease in importance is shown in press and media relations with printed press and radio and television (-24.5% and -8.8% compared to the average increase of 16.8%), paid information and events (-13.2% and 10.0% compared to the average increase of 16.8%). The traditional way of addressing gatekeepers seems to be reinvented by contacting online journalists more intensively in addition to journalist working for the traditional media.

Looking at online communication in more detail the results show that all forms of digital communication are valued twice as important in the short term future (2009) compared to the situation today. Wikis, podcasts and especially virtual worlds have less potential than other channels. This might reflect practice disappointment (i.e., with applications in Second Life) but can also highlight the fact that many professionals are already using those channels, which delimitates the growth factor. Online videos and social networks will gain the most relevance compared to the average change in using digital communication (10.8% and 5.6% respectively compared to the average increase of relevance of interactive channels for strategic communication of 30.71%) followed by RSS feed and weblogs (respectively 2.1% and 1.2% compared to the average increase of 30.71%). Online videos are seen as an important instrument for communication with consumers, journalists, and employees followed by using online videos for viral campaigns, corporate publishing, and investor relations.

Within the context of the coaching and counseling role of communication professionals an important question is which strategic issues communication professionals see for the future. The European professionals overall consider linking business strategy and communication as the most important issue at the moment (45%, n = 685 of the respondents mentioned this issue), closely followed by the issue of dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility (41%, n = 624). Not all the subgroups of professionals rank the strategic issues in the same way. Respondents working with joint stock and private companies rank the two earlier mentioned issues as the most important, while for respondents working for governmental organizations advancing public affairs and political communication is the most important issue (41.1%, n = 626) with social responsibility and dealing with the digital evolution in second place (both 33.3%, n = 507). Coping with digital evolution and the social web even ranks first for respondents working in non profit organizations (44.8%, n = 682) and for consultants working in communication agencies as well (48.1%, n = 733). Advancing public affairs and political communication ranks second (41.4%, n = 630) for respondents working with the government and consultants agree with the professionals working in commercial organizations ranking linking business strategy and communication as the second important issue (46.5%, n = 708). Other issues in the top 5 are building and maintaining trust and dealing with the demand of transparency and active audiences both mentioned by around 30% (n = 457) of all the respondents (see Table 2 for an overview of the ranking of the issues and type of organizations).

TABLE 2. Ranking of the Five Most Strategic Issues in Communication Management Related to the Type of Organization

Strategic issues	Type of organizations
	Joint stock companies	Private companies	Nonprofitorganizations	Governmentorganizations	Communicationagencies
Linking business strategy and communication	1	1	3	3	2
Dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility	2	2	3	2	3
Advancing public affairs and political communication			2	1
Coping with the digital evolution and the social web	3	4	1	2	1
Building and maintaining trust	4	3	4	3	5
Dealing with the demand of transparency and active audiences	5		5	4	4
Globalisation of communication		5
Supporting organizational change				5
Source: Zerfass et al. (2008), p. 35 (n = 1,524 communication managers from 37 European countries).

There is considerable agreement in the different European regions about the two most important strategic issues for communication management. Linking business strategy and communication ranks number one in Northern, Western and Eastern Europe ² and number two in Southern Europe with no significant differences in importance (F(3, 1512) = .046, p = .987). Dealing with sustainability and corporate social responsibility ranks first in Southern Europe but there is no significant difference in importance with the other three regions (F (3, 1512) = 2.144, p = .093). In Northern Europe coping with the digital evolution and the social web ranks second, although the assessment does not vary significantly between the regions (F (3, 1512) = 1,287, p = .277).

In conclusion, we find that strategic communication professionals believe they face three major challenges in the near future: linking their function to business strategies, dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility, and coping with digital evolution and the social web. These issues fit remarkably well with the model of reflective communication management where the organization is looked at from a perspective of the public sphere. Obviously this applies to dealing with social responsibility and the digital communication the most, but also to the issue of linking business strategy with communication. For this issue the counseling and coaching roles become important to be able to bridge or reconcile the interests of the organization (or its management) with the interests of the outside world in the public sphere. The results of the ECM 2008 on the aspect of strategic issues for the profession confirm earlier research, as described for example in the Bled Manifesto of 2002 (Van Ruler & Verčič, 2002b), that the European profession has a strong reflective dimension that incorporates reflection on the organization from the point of view of society as a whole. The importance given to corporate social responsibility by the sample is further evidence for this argument.

CSR'S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONALIZATION

Strategic communication has the role in organizations of building and maintaining relationships with key publics and opinion formers. This in turn contributes significantly to the institutionalization of communication functions as it provides access to and means to communicate with these defined stakeholders. It can be argued this requires specialist knowledge and skills, which in turn provide the organization with its license to operate. Examples in corporate communication might be issues management, public affairs, investor relations, and corporate social responsibility (CSR). At the core of CSR are questions of governance and legitimization of an organizations' role in society, taking into account economic, ecological and social implications of its actions on internal and external stakeholders (Crane, McWilliams, & Matten, 2008; May, Cheney, & Roper, 2007). This area came up significantly in the findings from the ECM 2008 survey where three out of four communication managers reported being involved in CSR activities (see Table 3).

TABLE 3. Involvement of Communication Professionals in CSR activities

Order Issue	N	%
Participating in / leading CSR development	683	44.8
Communicating CSR activities	426	28.0
Not involved in CSR / CSR not relevant to the organization	414	27.2
Source: Zerfass et al. (2008), p. 48 (n = 1,524 communication managers from 37 European countries).

The three main challenges for communication management as identified by European practitioners are linking business strategy and communication (for 45.4%, n = 691 of participants); dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility (41.3%, n = 629); and coping with the digital evolution and the social web (38.5%, n = 586). Comparing with the results of the 2007 survey, business strategy has risen from second to first place, digital evolution has dropped from first to third place and sustainable development and CSR have climbed to second place and replaced building and maintaining trust in the top three rankings for 2008. The request for advanced communication in the fields of social responsibility (+10% on 2007 survey) and public affairs (+8% on 2007 survey) has grown considerably during the last months, as they are the only two issues that are rated higher than last year. This has implications as discussed on the institutionalization process.

From the survey results, CSR is predicted to be an ongoing issue of importance for communication managers across Europe (see Table 4). With regard to corporate social responsibility and sustainability—RQ10, RQ11 and RQ12—as stated three out of four professionals of public relations and communication management in Europe are involved in CSR activities (M = 3.23, SD = 1.20), mainly in joint stock companies. Judging by the results of this research, the motivation of organizations for CSR in Europe are primarily either negative duty motivation (e.g., social pressure) or positive duty motivation (i.e., personal or automotivation)—instead of utilitarian motivation i.e. as an instrument for obtaining economic profit (Maignan & Ralston, 2002). It is perceived in this way by respondents from all types of organizations and regions, as they point to reputation management (M = 3.85, SD = 1.01) and organizational values (M = 3.65, SD = 1.09) as the main motivations for CSR performance, whereas other pragmatic motivations were put aside.

TABLE 4. Most Important Issues within the Next Three Years

Order	Issue	N	%
1	Linking business strategy and communication	691	45.4
2	Dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility	629	41.3
3	Coping with the digital evolution and the social web	586	38.5
4	Building and maintaining trust	463	30.4
5	Dealing with the demand of new transparency and active audiences	440	28.9
Source: Zerfass et al, (2008), p. 35 (n = 1,524 communication managers from 37 European countries).

In this context, the main focus of CSR communication is to enhance the corporate profile (values and strategies). However, motivations vary sharply from region to region. Whereas social action is a main aspect in Eastern and Southern Europe, it is significantly less decisive in West and North Europe (see Table 5) (p < .001). Relationships with stakeholders on the issue of CSR is less valued in Western and Eastern Europe compared to North and South Europe (p < .001). Logically, this is a reflection of European cultural diversity as CSR plays the main role of adapting certain systems into others (Holmström, 2005). These findings are interesting in the context of the European Commission's stance on embracing CSR as a voluntary activity without rules and laws (Sewing, 2006). This viewpoint derives from the European Commission's perception of CSR as a philosophy, not a concept. This is despite some European Union countries such as France requiring companies to report on social and environmental performance.

TABLE 5. Main Focus of CSR Communication in Different European Regions

Focus of CSR communication	Region
	NorthernEurope	WesternEurope	SouthernEurope	EasternEurope	Europeat large
Corporate profile	66.6%	58.9%	60.4%	56.8%	60.8%
Social action	32.5%	35.0%	45.8%	50.0%	37.7%
Environmental action	39.3%	38.6%	38.2%	31.5%	37.9%
Employment and human resources	34.1%	35.3%	27.1%	36.3%	33.8%
Products and services	30.5%	32.7%	27.6%	39.0%	31.9%
Corporate governance	27.9%	28.6%	24.0%	23.3%	27.1%
Corporate ethics	27.3%	28.9%	21.8%	23.3%	27.0%
Economic action	18.8%	24.2%	28.0%	26.7%	23.9%
Relationships with stakeholders	23.1%	17.7%	27.1%	13.0%	19.9%
Source: Zerfass et al. (2008), p. 35 (n = 1,361 communication managers from organizations and agencies in which CSR is relevant).

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is becoming the most important, but ambiguous field of practice: 35% (n = 533) of professionals in Europe consider it important today, while 73% (n = 1,112) think that it will be important in three years. Yet, reputation management is the key driver for CSR activities in all types of organizations (see Table 6). This raises an important question about CSR activities: are they about image, substance, or both? There is a real danger that the abundance of CSR programs produces a cynical backlash for the society at large. In this context authenticity, sincerity and legitimacy will be crucial.

TABLE 6. Main Drivers for CSR Activities in Europe

Order	Drivers	N	%
1	Reputation management	949	69.8
2	Business/organizational values	822	60.4
3	Consumer/stakeholder pressure	408	30.0
4	Legitimizing organizational activities	504	37.1
5	Employees' expectations	449	33.0
Source: Zerfass et al. (2008), p. 35 (n = 1,361 communication managers from organizations and agencies in which CSR is relevant).

Communication managers need to become critical of the promotional uses of CSR programs. For example sponsorship is a communication tool and not an ethical activity in itself. The self-delusion of management that it is being socially responsible if it invests in activities that communicate (e.g., professional sports, like the Olympics) are self-defeating and have a negative impact.

In addressing CSR's role in supporting the institutionalization of communication in organizations it could be argued that shared perceptions of communication managers in seeing the importance of CSR today and as even more important in three years' time, is significant. This supports Warren, Rose and Bergunder's (1974) earlier definition of institutionalization evidenced through communication managers' shared thought structures and agreed upon ideas of the role. In the context of CSR, these ideas are shared by practitioners inside the organization and also outside and demonstrated through the normalizing of shared views by practitioners. For example 73% (n = 1,112) of communication managers in the ECM survey highlighted that CSR has importance today and will continue to be important in three years. This shared meaning could be part of the institutionalization process for CSR with the communication professional and therefore be leading towards institutionalization of the practice.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

So how does this article respond to the questions about institutionalization of strategic communication and the influence on practice? The first question posed in the article challenged whether strategic communication practitioners live in an “ideal home” where they are an established, integrated and essential part of the organisational structure. This led to questions about whether strategic communication is indeed institutionalized, whether this institutionalization is desirable and whether has it been successful. An alternative view would be one of communication practitioners being controlled members of a constraining organizational structure, which is turning them into reluctant ‘inmates’ of the institution.

The data from the ECM 2008 transnational survey presented in this article has provided interesting findings that do help answer these questions and contribute to the debate. For instance, the paper argues that strategic communication is indeed institutionalized in two ways: (1) as a collective pattern of behaviour, mainly that of the management of mediated communication as well as the involvement with CSR; and (2) as an institutionalized thought structure, i.e., the extent to which strategic communication is seriously taken into account by senior managers in decision making and strategic planning for the organization. This does suggest strategic communication is an “institutionalized thought structure” to fit with Warren, Rose and Bergunder's (1974) earlier arguments.

Second, this raises the questions of whether the function of strategic communication and the professional practitioners are inmates of the organization. The evidence in the results is not entirely clear but does offer insights. For example, some results seem to indicate that strategic communication practitioners are not inmates because they perform the boundary spanning role of communication (at the boundary of the organization and its environment) as shown by the importance of CSR and also by corporate communication taking the lead over marketing/brand and consumer communication. This suggests they are flexible practitioners who are not demonstrating the constraints of the institution as they seek out, receive, process and utilize information from a range of internal and external sources. At the same time this leadership on key strategic issues such as CSR and corporate communication/strategy are also demonstrable examples of how strategic communication is becoming more of an integrated member of the organisation than it used to be. Therefore, it is arguably institutionalized.

Discussions have been raised on how CSR is evidence of strategic communications' institutionalization as its shared relevance today and increased predicted importance in three years' time reflects an institutionalization of CSR by communication professionals and therefore leading to institutionalization of the practice. CSR then has a place in raising the profile and contribution of strategic communication practitioners in strategy, planning and decision making. However, it is important that strategic communications' contribution to CSR does not become a perceptual window dressing activity or only a question of issues management and image projection and maintenance.

Furthermore, strategic communication should be aware that the boundary spanning role of communication needs to be preserved, nurtured and strengthened. To achieve this it is imperative that strategic communicators are reflective on their roles and their practice. This will encourage them to look at the organization from the outside, which is a prerequisite for the boundary spanning function of the strategic communication manager. The more this is done the greater the understanding of the communication practitioner's role, contribution and importance to the organization. This will arguably be the case whether they are content or reluctant, known or unknown ‘inmates’ of the institution.

Notes

¹In this article we use the terms “strategic communication,” “communication management,” and “public relations” (in a broad sense used in European research and practice) as synonyms when referring to intentional communication activities by organizations used to fulfill their missions (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, Van Ruler, Verčič, & Sriramesh, 2007).

²Regions are defined as follows, according to United Nations Standard Classification; Northern Europe (n = 338): Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom; Western Europe (n = 766): Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Switzerland; Eastern Europe (n = 167): Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia; Southern Europe (n = 242): Bosnia/Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Malta, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey.