Building on Strength

by Denise Amyot and Fraser Likely

In 2001 and again in 2003, the Government of Canada’s communications community conducted two comprehensive benchmarking reviews, comparing communications functions across the community. The recently released second report, the 2003 Benchmarking Review of Federal Government Communications Branches, highlights where improvements have been made in departmental communications functions over the past two years. It also describes where further changes are necessary.

The fieldwork for the second Benchmarking Review (commissioned by the Communications Community Office and conducted by Likely Communication Strategies Ltd.) took place in the fall of 2003. The Review closely follows and builds on the original benchmarking review, which was sponsored by the Privy Council Office, Communications and Consultation Secretariat in 2001. Communications branches in twenty-eight federal departments or agencies participated in the first review. Twenty-nine communications branches were involved in the second. In both cases, the purpose was to take an informed and comprehensive “snapshot” of the collective communications community.

The resulting picture allows Heads of Communications and their staff members to make comparisons between their branch and others across the federal government. They can compare their situation in 2003 to baseline numbers established in 2001. They can also consider their own management approaches against common management issues and the newer management practices adopted by other branches.

SINCE 1999, THE DEMAND FOR COMMUNICATIONS ADVICE, SERVICES, PROGRAMS AND PRODUCTS HAS INCREASED TREMENDOUSLY. This is in contrast with the years of Program Review (beginning in the mid-90s) when Heads of Communications faced a situation of little demand for communications services and diminished resources for the communications function. The challenge then was to rebuild capacity.

The capacity problem continues, with pressure on existing resources, budgets, staffing, organization, service delivery, staff competencies and overall branch capabilities. While the Communications Community Office and the new Communications Policy have both been helpful, there have been many recent changes as Heads of Communications have worked to transform the communications functions of their agencies and departments. The 2003 Benchmarking review found a number of recent changes and developments, as follows:

Reporting Arrangements for Heads of Communications

The Communications Policy requires that “heads are members of senior management and report directly to deputy heads” (of the department or agency). The Benchmarking Review found that the vast majority of Heads of Communications now are full members of their organization’s highest level executive committee and report directly to the deputy head. This is a positive change from 2001. In a minority of situations, the Head reports to a senior executive other than the deputy head. In some cases, the Head of Communications has a dual title, e.g., with Policy and Communications or Public Affairs and Communications.

Salary Budgets

Relative to the demand for communications products and services, there has been a shortage of human resources. In trying to handle the expanding workload, Heads of Communications sometimes received approval for new staff – but in most cases, they had to resort to a variety of other expedients. These have included: increasing staffing levels by repatriating communications staff from previously independent “satellite” units housed in program areas; using the allowance for communications from one-time, sunset-clause monies from Treasury Board for new programs; and transferring funds from operations budgets to salary budgets. Increases in salary budgets for communications were generally offset by decreased funding on the operations side. Heads of Communications had the much-needed additional staff, but at a price: they had less money with which to develop communications products. Their overall base budget allocations remained constant.

Managerial Capacity

Heads of Communications have faced challenges in filling vacancies and in strengthening the managerial and strategic capabilities of the communications function. In particular, they have found it difficult to recruit talented executives from other functional communities into the communications community, given that more executives transfer out of the communications community than transfer in. While Heads of Communications have had some success in recruiting experienced professionals into IS-2 to IS-5 positions from outside the federal government, they have found it difficult to attract senior communications professionals at and above the IS-6 level – especially from outside the National Capital area. They found that they had to promote from within the federal communications community – and that required them to give assistance for learning, team building, mentoring and coaching. Heads believe that the focus on promotion from within the community has meant that many communications employees are being promoted too quickly to gain the all-round experience and in-depth expertise that their predecessors had. It is very much of a seller’s market within the community. There is a need to bring new blood to the community, particularly with the impending retirement of a large number of senior managers.

Seconds in Command

Given the complexity and open-ended nature of the communications function, Heads of Communication have been making increased use of seconds in command (“2ICs”), who are typically one level down from them. In some cases, the Head and the 2IC share the office of Head of Communications. In others, the Head and the 2IC are assigned separate responsibilities with the 2IC filling in when the Head is away. Given that the new Communications Policy has assigned the Head responsibility for managing the communications function across the department and not simply for the headquarters’ communications branch, Heads of Communication are finding themselves pulled in every direction, with a resulting need for someone in authority to be available to make decisions back in the Branch.

Staff Development

In the second half of the 1990s, the downsizing of communications resources left few dollars available for “growing talent.” Appreciating the need for a comprehensive staff development program, Heads have begun investing in orientation programs for new hires, succession planning, competency profiling, learning plans, professional development activities, training budgets, and developmental positions. Their work has been assisted by the efforts of the Communications Community Office. As well, they have instituted workplace health and well-being programs, granted time for second language training, and implemented team-building activities. Some see staff development as key to a vigorous retention program – and with better retention, recruitment would be less of an issue.

Managing the Communications Function

According to the Communications Policy, Heads are responsible for “managing the communications function,” which goes beyond managing the communications branch at headquarters. It can span the entire department or agency. While Heads are accountable for the function, employees performing communications duties outside of the headquarters communications branch are not direct reports. Heads have had to employ various mechanisms to make communications work. Programs covering social interaction, training, planning, resource allocation, consultation, and approval processes have been put in place for departmental communications staff. Memoranda of understanding have been signed with the heads of regional and satellite communication offices. Heads have created horizontal committees. They have brought departmental communication staff into the branch’s internal communication and knowledge management system. They have performed a gap analysis, evaluating the communications function against the requirements of the Communications Policy. A majority of Heads have assumed responsibility for a cross-departmental function, over and above their responsibilities as a Branch head. Their leadership skills have been tested as they implement the requirements of the Policy. Having two benchmarking reviews in recent years has allowed Heads of Communication to measure themselves and their progress against the accomplishments of their peers. The reviews have also given them a picture of the communications community as a whole. In doing these wide-ranging reviews, the communications community has set an example for other functional communities. Such studies can lay the foundation for the communications community and other communities to be the best that they can be.


Denise Amyot is Assistant Deputy Minister, Public and Ministerial Affairs, at Social Development Canada. She is also Chairperson of the Steering Committee for the Communications Community Office, 613-934-1647 and denise.amyot@sdc-dsc.gc.ca. Fraser Likely, President and Managing Partner at Likely Communication Strategies, is the communications management consultant who undertook the two benchmarking reviews. 613-727-8555 and likely@intranet.ca