Finding the Right Balance in Communication Team Structures
In today’s dynamic comms landscape, organisations are constantly seeking ways to enhance their communication strategies and foster effective collaboration among teams. In a recent Lunch & Learn session hosted by Simon Jones, Westco’s Executive Director of Communication, comms leaders explored the essential question: what is the perfect structure for a communication team when it comes to deploying skills and resources?
The discussion featured panellists Marina Pirotta (Head of Communications Profession at the London Borough of Barnet), Danielle Clayton (Joint Head of Communications at Leeds City Council), and Michael Stringer (Assistant Director of Communications at Surrey County Council), who shared their experiences and insights on optimising team structures to meet the evolving demands of public sector communications.
The account management approach
The evolution of team structures was a focal point of the discussion, particularly as panellists shared their experiences of transformation over the years. Danielle Clayton from Leeds City Council provided insight into how her team evolved from a split structure between communications and marketing to a more integrated approach using an account manager model. This illustrates a shift towards a more client-oriented service within comms teams.
Under this structure, business partners who work within the central comms and marketing team take on the account manager role – engaging with chief officers and directors to understand their priorities and resource needs, and then bringing that information back to the team for planning and execution. Underneath that layer of senior leadership are professional leads for different disciplines, such as creative design, digital and social media, marketing, press and media, and content creation.
By positioning communication professionals as business partners to executive directors, the Leeds team ensures that comms efforts align closely with strategic priorities, fostering better collaboration and understanding of departmental priorities. This allows communication leaders to tailor their strategies to support broader business objectives. This model empowers comms professionals to take ownership of their roles as strategic partners in driving the organisation’s success and by breaking down silos, the Leeds team has enhanced its ability to respond to the needs of the organisation and its stakeholders effectively.
Michael Stringer outlined a similar hybrid communication structure at Surrey County Council, which includes senior comms managers aligned to major directorates acting as business partners and a central corporate team which includes a production and channel management team, a design team, and a small internal communications function.
Challenges of centralisation vs. decentralisation
The discussion also touched on the balance between centralising comms resources versus maintaining some degree of decentralisation. Marina Pirotta from the London Borough of Barnet shared her journey upon joining the council, where she advocated for retaining some decentralised communications resources in directorates rather than centralising them to protect the integrity of the comms function during a politically sensitive time.
This structure includes a campaigns team focused on corporate objectives, with a dedicated team for core campaigns, preventing the team from being bogged down by service-based requests. This approach not only maintains the effectiveness of the communications function but also ensures that it remains agile and responsive to changing circumstances. Marina also mentioned the role of training and development in maintaining high standards across the team, ensuring that all comms professionals, whether in the central team or directorates, are working to the same standards.
While centralisation can streamline processes and reduce duplication, it can also lead to challenges in responsiveness and local engagement. Michael highlighted the complexities of managing a large organisation, where various funding models and embedded roles can create confusion regarding communication responsibilities. Michael also highlighted the potential for conflicting priorities faced by business partners, who must balance service-specific demands with corporate objectives.
The central communications team
Striking the right balance between centralisation and decentralisation is essential to ensure that teams can respond effectively to both local and organisational needs. One of the key takeaways from the session was the emphasis on having business partners embedded within the central comms team. This structure promotes seamless communication and collaboration, ensuring that all team members are aligned with the overarching organisational goals.
Unlike traditional models where business partners operate in isolation within their respective services, an embedded model facilitates a shared understanding of objectives, leading to more effective outcomes. Both Michael and Marina emphasised the importance of having a clear communication strategy and policies, regardless of structure, to ensure alignment with corporate priorities and consistency across the organisation.
By focusing on shared goals rather than directorate-specific outcomes, councils can foster a cohesive approach to communication that amplifies the impact of their messaging. This interconnectedness helps mitigate the risk of miscommunication and promotes a unified voice across the organisation.
Flexibility and adapting to change
The need for flexibility in team structures and adapting to change emerged as a significant theme during the discussion, emphasising the necessity for comms teams to adjust their structures (and even roles) in response to evolving challenges. Communication leaders face mounting pressures, including the need to reduce costs, fill skill gaps, and enhance overall team effectiveness. The panellists underscored the importance of being flexible and responsive, especially in the dynamic environment in which local councils operate.
Teams must be agile enough to adapt to new technologies, audience preferences, and emerging trends. Participants emphasised that rigid hierarchies can stifle creativity and responsiveness, leading to missed opportunities. Instead, fostering a culture of collaboration where roles are fluid can empower team members to contribute their unique skills and perspectives. The ability to pivot and adapt not only ensures the sustainability of comms efforts but also allows teams to remain relevant in an increasingly complex landscape.
By allowing business partners to engage with multiple areas, such as supporting both adults and health services while also contributing to children’s services, councils can cultivate a more versatile team. This not only enhances the skill set of individual partners but also enriches the overall knowledge within the central communications team. Plus, when team members are cross-trained to cover for one another, it minimises disruption and ensures that comms efforts continue without a hitch, regardless of individual circumstances.
Rethinking team structures and resource deployment
The insights shared during this Lunch & Learn session underscored that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to structuring communication teams. The discussions underscored the importance of embracing flexibility, fostering collaboration, and strategically aligning communication efforts with organisational priorities. Often, a centralised communication strategy is more important than the structure itself.
In today’s dynamic comms landscape, organisations are constantly seeking ways to enhance their communication strategies and foster effective collaboration among teams.