△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Devaluing communications at Chrysler

There were positive signs out of the reborn automaker Chrysler, which was acquired by a private company from Daimler. A blog was one of the first visible signs of change at the company.

But news this week from Chrysler casts a different light on the degree to which it values communications. The company’s communications VP, Jason Vines, resigned and the entire communications function was shifted to report to—are you sitting down?—Human Resources.

An article in the Detroit Free Press quotes Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli suggesting that the realignment is all about being more “holistic” in order to “more effectively drive company strategy.”

I might chortle over Nardelli dropping the word “holistic” to explain a reorganization, but the demotion of an entire communications function—internal and external—to a unit of HR is disturbing. At its core, HR has defined goals and objectives that are likely to taint external communication efforts. Further, HR executives have little, if any, understanding of media relations, either tactically or strategically. Personally, I even oppose internal communications reporting to HR, which prefers to address benefits and wellness issues over corporate strategy and other subjects that are likely to create higher levels of employee commitment and engagement. And most HR leaders are loathe to address bad news.

But there’s a bigger issue at play here. Nardelli clearly hasn’t seen enough value in communications to be bothered with it as a direct report; he has opted to sweep it under the rug and left his personnel manager to deal with it.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen communications relegated to a trivial stature. I seem to recall that GM once had communications reporting to (urgh) Legal.

Chrysler’s action certainly doesn’t speak well of Nardelli’s view of communications’ importance as a management function. I can only hope it isn’t the start of a trend.

12/12/07 | 4 Comments | Devaluing communications at Chrysler

Comments

  • 1.There are many places where corporate communications should report; HR however is not one of them. I think HR invites a more insular view of communications and the company.

    Like a man with country, corp comm has no real home. Its function and chief client largely depend on the issue at hand -- sometimes finance, sometimes legal and other times marketing. On any given day, we serve the CEO, CFO, CMO or CIO.

    Contrary to many corporate practices, I have long maintained that internal and external relations should fall under the corporate communications umbrella. Separating them undermines a company's ability to create a cohesive communications strategy.

    Regrettably, corp comm is often a corporate stepchild. It is our continuing challenge to get a seat at the table within a department that makes strategic sense. It is my hope that social media creates an opportunity for corp comm to integrate several key corporate functions that have been traditionally seen as independent of one another.

    Dan Greenfield | December 2007 | Atlanta

  • 2.I agree with Shel, but this is part of a disturbing trend in the large corporate world. The large bank that I worked for reorganized my communications and media relations function into a single "corporate Communications" department that is headed by an executive with no communications experience, who spent most of his career in HR.

    HR is not the place for communications to report. It should be reporting to the chairman. Obviously Mr. Nardelli (and his past track record at Home Depot underscores this) doesn't want to hear honest assessments of what's going on from his team. He wants to surround himself with "yes" people who tell him what he wants to hear. Must be working for him...look how much he got in parting gifts when Home Depot tossed him under the bus.

    Steve Lubetkin | December 2007 | Cherry Hill, NJ

  • 3.I simply echo what everyone has said here. You have to wonder, though, if we're not doing too good of a job in helping execs like Nardelli understand what PR is and what value it adds to a company.

    Adam Denison | December 2007 | Detroit, MI

  • 4.Adam, I used to believe that maybe we were part of the problem, but I see this over and over again that these senior guys think they know how to do everything, and no matter how many times they screw up a company or its relationship with its communities and stakeholders, they still walk away with a mega-grillion dollar payday so they think they are right.

    Many large companies have simply stopped caring what the public thinks or what their employees think. Look at AT&T;killing off telecommuting. Look at large banks that have 20-something PR people reading scripts to veteran banking reporters at Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal. Look at companies that whisper to reporters' editors that they won't cooperate with reporters they don't like. And worse, the editors cowtow and assign a different reporter more to the company's liking.

    They just have made a corporate decision to take the bad press because it doesn't matter to them any more. Sad state of affairs.

    Steve Lubetkin | December 2007 | Cherry Hill, NJ

Comment Form

« Back