Running head: COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF PURDUE EXPONENT

Communication Audit of the Purdue Exponent Amanda Norell, C. Raven Anderson, Taylor Cavanagh, and Jordan Marks Purdue University

COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF THE PURDUE EXPONENT

Abstract This report presents the findings of a communication audit conducted by four students enrolled in the COM 324 course at Purdue University. The organization that was assessed was The Exponent, Purdue Universitys independent student-run newspaper. The key purpose of this audit was to examine and assess the hierarchical structures in place at this organization, and how they relate to worker productivity. Methods used to obtain data for this assessment include surveys and interviews. Through the data that was collected, we found that there were several key communication breakdowns, which were negatively affecting the productivity of the organization. To address these issues, several recommendations were made, including early morning group meetings, as well as an increase in communication across multiple channels of communication in order to facilitate a clear understanding of organizational goals for all members. Our recommendations suggest that the organization shift away from a classical hierarchy to a systems-oriented hierarchical structure, with more horizontal communication.

COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF THE PURDUE EXPONENT

SECTION I: Statement of Purpose Through the organizational communication assessment project, groups in COM324 are given the opportunity to observe organizations and collect data from its members via interviews and surveys to help better understand its culture. This assignment gives students the opportunity to put into practice the concepts and lessons they have learned throughout the semester and present their findings in a written report. The organization our group has decided to examine for this project is the Exponent, Purdue Universitys independent student newspaper. We have chosen to examine the culture of a specific segment of this organization, the newsroom, through the way that it is structured. Hierarchy is a factor that has the potential to define cultures and we felt that this would be an interesting area to focus on at the Exponent because of its newsroom structure. To gain further insight into the organizational culture of the Exponent, our group has decided to specifically assess the hierarchical structures in place and how they relate to members productivity. The Exponent is Purdue Universitys independent student-run newspaper. This organization has a number of different branches, including news reporting, advertising, production and administration, which is each their own separate entity under the Exponent name. The history of the Exponent dates back to late 19th century when it was founded on December 15, 1889 (Contact, n.d.). According to the Contact section on the Exponents website, about 150 students work in all areas of the newspaper, but there are only seven full-time employees who work there (Contact, n.d.). Today, this organization holds the title of the largest collegiate newspaper in the state of Indiana, and publishes print copies 5 days a week (Contact, n.d.) The Exponent also administers an online website to which they upload articles, as well as Facebook and Twitter accounts that allow further reader interaction. The structure of the Exponent newsroom tiers down from the editor-in-chief to the managing editor, desk editors, assistant desk editors and reporters. The editor-in-chief of the newspaper, just as is it with all major publications, oversees production from the campus desk, features desk, sports desk and photo desk. This person is responsible for the final product that is sent to the printer for next-day publication. The Exponent has graduated students from all majors and fields of study, and has alumni in esteemed professions including lawyers, physicians, engineers, advertising executives and journalists (Contact, n.d). The Exponents mission statement is as follows: The Purdue Exponent is an independent student newspaper published by a non-for-profit Indiana corporation known as the Purdue Student Publishing Foundation (Contact, n.d.). SECTION II: Review of Procedure for Data Collection During the data collection process, we utilized both surveying as well as interviewing in order to collect as much information as possible. Surveys were distributed to members in the organization, who varied both in regards to their position in the organizational hierarchy as well as the department in which they worked. In addition to this, we conducted face-to-face interviews with four separate members of upper management. An actual copy of the survey used can be found in the appendix at the end of this report. As the focus of our audit is on hierarchical communication, the survey questions focused on two

COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF THE PURDUE EXPONENT

categories: 1) direction of communication flow within the organization (e.g. top to bottom, horizontal, etc.), and 2) channels of communication most frequently utilized (e.g. face-to-face, group meetings, email, etc.). The participants were asked, in one column, to rate how frequently they perceived the various communication directions/channels to be within the organization. In the second column, they were asked to demonstrate the level they felt the organization should ideally have, compared to the level it currently had. The participants surveyed offered a fairly comprehensive sample population for the organization. Of the eleven participants, six were male, and five were female, with at least one sample from each desk/department of the organization. Hierarchically, three samples were from low-level members of the organization (such as reporters), four were mid-level members (such as assistant editors), and four were upper-level members (such as head desk editors). All members surveyed were between the ages of 18-23, and were currently students in addition to their roles within the organization. Our team made visits to the Exponent at various times, at which point we distributed copies of the survey to members of differing departments, in order to collect data, which was as comprehensive as possible. Participants were first walked through the consent form and informed of the nature and intent behind the project, then given verbal instructions on how to complete the survey. After answering any questions regarding either the questions on the survey or the format it, the survey was left with the participant to be done at their own convenience and picked up at a later date. After the surveys were collected, the data was entered into a spreadsheet for further analysis. For the interview process, the participants selected were four upper-level members of the organization. We selected these four candidates for two reasons: 1) their respective positions collectively involve responsibilities which span across the entire organization, and 2) as they are in supervisory roles, the amount of communication both being sent and received would be generally higher than that of the lower-level members, so their managerial perspective could provide some additional insight as to potential problems (as well as solutions) for the organization. A copy of the interview questions can be found at the end of the report in the appendix. The interviews were done face-to-face with each of the four members individually. Two members of our team conducted the interviews; one team member would ask the questions and facilitate the conversation with the participant, and the other would transcribe the participant's responses. SECTION III: Summary of Raw Data The interview was composed of ten questions. The first six questions related to productivity and problems in the organization. The last four questions were related feedback that managers or editors give to their subordinates. Each question was open-ended so our group could receive the most accurate, well-rounded data. Now we will state each interview question and summarize the data. The question we asked can be found in the appendix, in our interview guide. For the first question it was an opinion question of how the interviewees saw themselves. Everyone, the four different editors, we interviewed described themselves as productive or they

COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF THE PURDUE EXPONENT

said that they try to be very productive. Two of the four people described the hours that they worked on average per week. One worked between forty and fifty hours, while the second person said they worked thirty hours on average per week. One of the four editors rated themselves on a scale of one to ten. They said they were a seven, because they do not have a lot of assigned tasks. For the second question one editor said that they were not here over the summer, so that hindered their productivity, but since the beginning of the semester to now it has been a steady level. Another editor said that they had to become more organized to stay at a high productivity level. The other two editors mention that towards the end of the semester the organization, them included, tends to be less productive. One mentioned that this could be problematic because of the increased workload, covering both football and basketball. They said the quantity of stories they have to write goes up, while the quality goes down. For the third question, one editor wants to be able to be more direct, when criticizing or making suggestions, without being offensive. One editor said that, There are flaws present, but the biggest issue is that everyone is a student, Editor in Chief all the way down. One editor mentioned that more communication between desks would be helpful. Two editors mentioned changing the daily meeting times, so that it occurred every day before work was started, but then they both stated that this would be nearly impossible because of classes. For the fourth question, all four of the editors mentioned classes and/or school schedules to be the most difficult external variable they had to deal with. Two editors mentioned social lives and extracurricular activities posing problems. Two of the editors also brought up the fact that personal issues could cause problems. For the fifth question, three of the four editors interviewed, questioned the wording of the question. We had to clarify it, so this may have caused some variation in the results. One editor said that the hours that are required influence productivity. A second editor said that it was hard to meet with the photo editor to format articles, which often caused problems. A third editor said that for the Sports desk, planning ahead is key. If they have to interview the coaches or athletes, it requires time outside of the normal hours. The fourth editor described work consistencies throughout the different levels. They said the senior staff is very consistent, the editors are consistent, and the reporters are freelance, so their commitment is solely based on themselves. For the sixth question, one editor explained that people in the organization had different intentions for being there. They said, Some people are just here to get paid. Some people are here because they like to write. Some are here because they are communication majors. Anybody can benefit from being here. The second editor said, how well people get along, and their level of interest in an assignment affects performance. The third editor mentioned that there is no journalism school at Purdue. They said that, People come to be in marketing or journalism, but they are not dedicated to quality. The fourth editor mentioned that drive is a factor, and that how much respect for yourself, in regards to the quality of your work, is another factor. For the seventh question, three of the four editors said that confronting the person who wrote the story, going through the problems and giving advice on how to fix everything is the best way to handle poor work. The other editor mentioned explaining things during the meetings, by showing quantifiable items and explaining hard to understand topics.

COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF THE PURDUE EXPONENT

For the eighth question, two of the editors said that they compliment their subordinates directly whether face-to-face or through text. They also said giving compliments and encouragement keeps confidence and morale up. One editor mentioned that if a reporter does well they get better stories. One editor said they only give compliments to people who go above and beyond the basic job expectations. While the fourth editor stated that they, directly compliment the piece the [reporter or subordinate] did. For the ninth question, the two editors mentioned that there are no set criteria, but it is on an individual basis. They said that this is because people have different writing styles and some people may not understand the English language or vocabulary. The other two editors mentioned that there are concrete things, such as hours worked, tweets, and story counts that are in a basic criteria, as well as types of stories written. For the tenth question, all editors mentioned that the Editor in Chief completes performance reviews for his or her subordinates. They explained that the evaluations were not done often and they received accuracy surveys and just basic notes on how improve everything overall. Now we have summarized the interview data, we will now move onto describing the survey data. The survey was made up of a total of eighteen questions, they can be found in the appendix still in survey form. The questions were asking how communication flowed through the organization as well as what channels were used. Questions one through eight were dealing with communication flow and questions nine through eighteen were dealing with the channels used. The questions were paired off, so for example question one and two were together. All of the odd numbered questions were asking what was currently present in the organization. All of the even numbered questions were asking what they needed or wanted to happen within the organization. I will now summarize the first eight survey questions. For the survey participants were to evaluate the communication flow on a scale from one to five. One was the worst possible score, while five was the best. These answers obviously vary because people hold different positions in the organization, so they see different interactions going on. For question one, most people seemed to think that this type of flow was done well the lowest score was a two and the highest was a five. For the second question, most people seemed to think that this type of communication flow could be improved upon. The lowest score was a four and the highest a five. For question three, the scores were varied. The lowest was a one, the worst, while the highest was a four. For question four, the scores were on the higher end, the lowest was a three, while the highest a five. Question five had fairly high scores. Almost everyone gave fours, while only four people gave scores of two or three. For question six, it had a bigger variation than its paired question. The lowest score was a two, and the highest a five. The seventh question had a low score of one, and a high score of five; this was the same results for the eighth question. I will now summarize the second set of eight survey questions. For these questions we asked the organization members to evaluate the communication channels used in the organization. For question nine, the lowest score was a one and the highest was a five. Most of the people scored this a three or above. Only one person gave it a score of one. For question ten, the lowest score was a two, and the highest was a five. Only one person gave a score of two. For question eleven, the lowest score was a two, and the highest was a four. Most people gave it a score of four. Question twelve was similar, with a low score of two and a high score of five. Five was the most common score. Question thirteen had a low score of two and a high score of five. Question

COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF THE PURDUE EXPONENT

fourteen had the same results as its pair. Five was the most common score. For question fifteen, there was a low score of one and a high score of three. One was the most common score. The results were the same for question sixteen. Question seventeen had a low score of one and a high score of three. Two was the most common score. This was the same for question eighteen. With all data collection, there is a chance for error. One survey that was collected was completely thrown out of the analysis because it was done incorrectly. The numbers that person chose did not make any sense, being completely opposite from the rest of the data (indicating that the participant desired less communication across the board). Another error was that one person neglected to answer question fourteen, so we threw out that pair on their survey for the analyzed data. The third and final error was obvious, as one person answered questions fifteen and sixteen with fours, while most everyone else used ones, twos, or threes. This person also did the same thing with questions seventeen and eighteen, where they scored it as fives when everyone else used ones, twos, and threes. This indicated to us that this participant was not taking the survey seriously. As a group, we decided it was best to remove these samples from the data pool in order to help ensure the accuracy of the results. SECTION IV: Analyzing the Data In order to analyze the data, all of the participants scores were transcribed into a master spreadsheet. Using this spreadsheet, several tests were run on that data in order to conclude the averages and ranges of the scores for the various survey questions. We looked at the data from a few different perspectives; we analyzed the survey results as an aggregate of the organization as a whole, and additionally, we compared the scores given between members of the organization who are in upper management to the scores of lower-level members in the hierarchy (such as the reporters.) This allowed us to see how members felt about communication flow within the organization altogether as well as serving to highlight possible disparities between the perspectives of upper management and lower-level members. Interview responses were reviewed and discussed by our team in order to gain the clearest understanding possible of how the various upper-level managers felt about the communication within the organization. Generally, communication at the Exponent flows more commonly from supervisors to subordinates than vice versa. Supervisors tend to give guidance for writing stories or even information on potential stories. However, communication does not flow as downward as much as people want to. When comes to horizontal communication (from subordinate to subordinate) or between departments isnt as common as it is between management and subordinates. It seems that minimal participation in inner-departmental is needed but not as important as communication between management and subordinates. It also seems that people in lower-level management are more convinced that the communication flows downward rather than upward, but people in the highest levels of management feel there is no one above them to receive information so there is almost no one to receive information from, other than subordinates. Based on the data we obtained via surveys and interviews, we determined that members of the Exponent, on the whole, felt that there was less communication being sent out by various departments than was ideal. This suggests that some of the weaknesses this organization experiences could be rectified through an increase in communication from the horizontal level as well as an increase in face-to-face communication. When broken down between upper level and lower level employees, those in the upper level reported sending less information down than their

COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF THE PURDUE EXPONENT

subordinates reported sending up. This suggests that the hierarchical flow of communication has a strong bias toward a top-down direction, indicating that the lower-level employees arent always able to communicate effectively about what they need in order to do their job correctly. Despite the fact that the Exponent could increase the amount of communication members both send and receive, the organization appears to have a strong practice of utilizing specific channels of communication. Based on the data, it appears that the strict hierarchical structures in place at the Exponent present an obstacle to the flow of information. SECTION V: Recommendations Based on the data collected as well as the responses during the face-to-face interviews, our group has come up with a few suggestions to improve worker productivity within the organization. A common theme which arose was that there was a lack of horizontal communication as well as communication from the bottom to the top. To amend for this, we as a group suggest that the Exponent try to make a few changes to their communication methods. Our first suggestion is to begin instituting early morning group meetings. These meetings should include members from all the different departments, as well as reporters (who previously did not attend many group meetings within the organization, and thus lacked requisite information to be as productive as possible). This allows all the members of the organization to make sure that they are on the same page, and they are aware of the organizations goals and tasks for that day/week. Additionally, the content of these meetings should be recorded and sent out to all members of the organization via some form of memo (such as email, a Facebook group, etc.) so that all members of the organization know what went on during the meeting, regardless of whether or not they were able to attend. An increase of communication channels used is recommended as well. The analysis of the data suggested that people greatly preferred face-to-face communication, so it is important for members of the Exponent to try to be more proactive in seeking out and discussing organizational problems and goals face-to-face with the persons involved. This goes for both downward-flowing communication as well as communication from a subordinate to a superior. A common complaint among upper management was a disconnect between lower-level reporters and upper-level members of the organization regarding expectations for both quality as well as content, so more frequent face-to-face meetings between departments and hierarchical levels could help clarify exactly what is expected of all members of the organization. All of these suggestions are centered on our groups findings that the more strict classical hierarchy currently found within the Exponent actually serves to inhibit many forms of communication. It is our belief that a shift towards a more systems-oriented hierarchical approach would be more effective in boosting productivity amongst members of all levels of the organization.

COMMUNICATION AUDIT OF THE PURDUE EXPONENT

References

Purdue exponent contact page. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.purdueexponent.org/site/contact/