And Carrie On

I’ve been in the process of restructuring within the MarComm team I lead. To do that work, I’ve looked at national best practices and also visited with multiple friends about how their MarComm teams are organized.

It’s wild how many different organizational charts I’ve looked at over the last few months. At some point, as I was exploring the numerous different organizational approaches, I had an epiphany about why MarComm organization looks different on just about every campus!

It’s a product of two specific things:

1. The organization — Every university has a different culture, different leaders, and different community. This results in different challenges and different expectations the team leader is trying to address.
2. The model used — There are multiple models for MarComm leaders to consider. Embedded, Hybrid, Centralized, Project-Based, and more. These create different opportunities and risks for leaders to manage.

Combining these two factors is part of why there are so many different ways that a MarComm team can be structured.

Most Common MarComm Models

Centralized

In this model, there is a main unit that oversees MarComm operations for the entire university. They handle large institutional needs like branding, campus communication, storytelling, enrollment needs, fundraising support, and also departmental projects. This works for institutions trying to build brand cohesion and ensure consistency across campus.

Pros: Efficient resource allocation; Ownership by expertise; Strong brand and quality control.

Risks: Can feel slow to campus partners; Can feel overwhelming to MarComm team; Difficult to align strategic needs with urgent ones.

Helpful hints: A strong MarComm strategy along with a prioritization process are the biggest keys to success in this model.

Embedded

In this model, the MarComm representatives sit inside the colleges and divisions working closely with the dean to execute projects. They handle college-based initiatives, which can be brand work, internal communication, storytelling, and even fundraising — all at the college level. This model works best for large institutions with college-level autonomy and for colleges with distinct branding identities.

Pros: Fast response times on projects; Strong relationships with deans, faculty and students; Strong familiarity with the college.

Risks: Duplication of effort across multiple divisions; Brand fragmentation across the entire organization; Internal competition among different MarComm teams.

Helpful hints: Communication and role clarity among all MarComm teams operating at the institution are the best ways to be successful in this environment.

Hybrid

A hybrid model marries the above models. The strategy and the vision lie within the central team. This group is charged with developing branding, key messaging, and analytic dashboards. Then, embedded teams handle the day-to-day execution. The teams pool resources to achieve their joint goals in this model. This model works well in organizations that want a central strategy with an emphasis on local relationships.

Pros: Strong brand and strategic alignment; Work can be achieved at scale across the organization; Emphasizes relationships across the institution.

Risks: Team members in the division may face tension serving two leaders; Duplication may be needed to ensure each division team has needed technical expertise; Confusion over roles can happen quickly.

Helpful hints: Spell out who owns what aspect of the work clearly. Regular conversations between the central and the embedded team are critical.

Pod-based

This approach marries the organizational function of MarComm members with key institutional priorities to develop cross-functional teams. Each MarComm team focuses on a specific priority such as enrollment, athletics, advancement, academics. The team is organized on these priorities and not the function of their work (writer, designer, etc.). This works well for institutions focused on specific, measurable outcomes.

Pros: Team members develop deep knowledge of their area; Breaks down silos within MarComm expertise areas; Clear accountability for successes and failures; Faster campaign deployment.

Risks: Difficult to execute in small teams; Team members can burnout by only focusing on specific pods; Challenging to manage projects that don’t align with a pod; Turnover is harder to manage; Interpersonal differences can impact the work quickly.

Helpful Hints: Finding a mechanism to share what each pod is working on ensures all MarComm members can learn across areas. Additionally, sometimes pod members need to change because of interpersonal differences.

Shared Services

In this model, MarComm functions as an internal agency, and they develop custom solutions for needs that arise at all levels of the organization. The MarComm team has account executives, strategists, and technical experts to work on the projects the campus needs. Sometimes in this model, departments pay for these services. This can work well in environments where there is high project volume and few individuals across campus to do this work.

Pros: Professional processes in onboarding and execution; Clear scope for approved projects.

Risks: Can be challenging to implement best-practice strategy; Tension between what’s requested and what’s needed; May feel reactive and transactional; Sheer number of requests can be overwhelming.

Helpful Hints: In this model, it’s important to weave strategic consulting into all projects instead of simply completing what’s requested.

Selecting the Right Model

The question isn’t “What’s the best model?” Instead, it’s looking at your organization’s culture, your team’s strengths, and your leadership approach to determine the best fit. Each of the above structures can work. However, they all require clarity about expectations, ownership, and outcomes. As a leader, it’s important to build the structure your institution is ready and willing to maintain.

Be sure to check back later this spring. I’ll be sharing more about some of the key roles in each of these models.