Improving Internal Communications - Human Resources Development Canada

Internal Auditor, Dec, 2000 by Basil Orsini

Employee complaints about what's wrong with internal communications plague many organizations. In a nationwide review, auditors at Human Resources Development Canada decided to shift their focus to what's right.

TWO EVENTS SERVED AS THE CATALYST FOR a recent national review of internal communications within Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), the country's largest federal department. First, an employee satisfaction survey showed only a slight improvement in internal communications effectiveness over the previous year, despite remedial measures. Although we were concerned, research by our internal audit team indicated that, as a general rule, employee surveys rarely report satisfaction with the quality of internal communications. We also learned that internal communications are usually a significant challenge for organizations, especially during periods of uncertainty and change. In our organization, management tactics, such as personal letters, newsletters, and monthly communiques from the deputy ministers to all employees were helping; but the message we received was that more was needed.

The second event occurred when we met with representatives from our regions throughout the country to consider risk and risk management issues. Problems with internal communications emerged once again, presenting themselves as risks to the organization. During that consultative process, we heard people saying, "We have a problem" and "It just isn't working." Our internal audit team felt we needed to act.

Recognizing that an audit confirming that "internal communications aren't working as well as they should" would be of little value to the organization, we decided to identify and validate the areas where it was working. Our plan was to compile and share information about best practices as a way of promoting improvement. We incorporated this focus into our audit plan proposal, and it was accepted.

CONSULTING VERSUS ASSURANCE

The IIA's new definition of internal auditing recognizes the importance of both consulting and assurance services for adding value to the organization. In designing audit projects, internal auditors can choose between these two approaches. Assurance audits provide significant value to an organization when reporting on the extent to which established objectives have been achieved, whereas one of the prime objectives of a consulting approach is to help create the conditions for organizational improvement.

In this instance, we were convinced that a consultative approach would work best as a tool for improving internal communications across a large, complex organization. This approach was also in line with our internal audit mission statement: "We provide objective information and solution-oriented advice to help managers achieve their business objectives and fulfill their responsibilities."

THE CHALLENGES

The idea that effective internal communications are fundamental to good governance and good business is a given within our organization. In the business world, however, we lack generally accepted criteria for what constitutes effective internal communications. It's still a highly subjective area.

In addition, internal communication is an incredibly broad area. In this study, we defined it as the full range of ways that people communicate with each other within the organization. Communication can be written, spoken, or virtual--and it can occur among individuals or in groups. Sometimes it's top-down information; sometimes it's participatory dialogue. Sometimes communication is about listening.

The art really lies in knowing which tool to use, which communication channel or tool is right for a certain circumstance. Having the appropriate tools at our disposal is not enough, however. The way we choose to communicate can be just as important as the message. For example, in certain circumstances, a manager's decision not to communicate may give a strong message with undesirable consequences. There are times when face-to-face communications are the only effective way to resolve employee concerns.

Despite the challenges, we recognized that if we looked only at hard controls--at issues that are quantitative and easy to measure--we wouldn't have a sufficient understanding of what was going on in the organization. Control models from both the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants--Criteria of Control (COCO)--and the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) of the Treadway Commission deal with the importance of soft controls. In fact, communication is an explicit and fundamental tenet of COCO. We don't neglect hard controls, but we know we must also assess soft controls, and the state of internal communications is a very important soft control.

THE STRATEGY

After considering the various dimensions of our task, we decided that our review objectives would be to identify, analyze, and widely share information on successful internal communication tools, approaches, and practices in HRDC field offices across the country and in regional and national headquarters offices. Our review was not designed to cover all aspects of internal communications. Instead it focused on tools, approaches, and practices occurring across all business lines and all levels of departmental organization.