2.6 Relations between Strategies and Communication

According to the results of the European Communication Monitor, a long-term European-wide survey among communication practitioners, the link between business strategy and communication is regarded as the most important issue for communication management within the next three years. However, in most cases it is simply assumed that communication management is a strategic management task. Likewise, the process of strategy formation and the contribution of communication strategy to corporate strategy are only marginally discussed （Raupp& Hoffjann, 2012）. Therefore, Hallahan et al. （2007） aim at deconstructing the concept of strategy in relationship to strategic communication. Nothhaft （2010） labels the organizational communication management as second-order management, which means influencing the management process of peers over which the communicators have no or, at best, functional authority. In contrast, the first-order management means influencing work （of subordinate workers） by“managing”it -for example by planning, organizing and controlling. Second-order management means influencing the managing of others, but not subordinate managers - it means influencing the planning, organizing and controlling of others. Integrating different roles of executives in implementing strategies and communication, communication executives in an organization should perform at least three important roles, i.e. missionary role, agent of common sense, and context controller in achieving strategic goals.

Nothhaft （2010） points out that communication executives in an organization perform the following two important functional roles: i.e., the missionary role and agent of common sense. First, missionary roles. When the communication executive explains the company's brand values to the new entrants, he/she acts in a role one might describe as missionary. The missionary might be the most common, most easily identifiable role of second-order management, and it is, of course, strongly related to Mintzberg's role of figurehead. Furthermore, it is strongly related to the concept of the Champion. Both the figurehead and champion are stage-managed in a prominent position to be seen as identified with something, an idea or concept. If the idea or concept succeeds, they will be seen as winning.

Second, agents of common sense. In addition to figurehead and champion to communicate the mission and values of organizations, communicators also act as agents of common sense. Communicators should take the final responsibility for efficiency in achieving common sense and execution of mission and values in the whole organizations. Wherever true responsibility may lie, in the end someone has to shoulder the blame. More often than not it is imposed on the communication manager than actively taken by himself/herself （ Nothhaft, 2010）.

Third, context controller roles to achieve strategic goal. The communication executive should exercise context control. Instead of working towards a certain clearly defined result, context control means working towards achieving conditions for favorable results to develop by themselves, in accordance with their own self-dynamics. Nothhaft and Wehmeier （2007） point out that context control is in fact the only way to achieve higher-level public relations objectives.

In short, missionary role of strategic communication, role of agents of common sense, and the role of context controller are to realize the core functions of communication executives. They will help organizations to gain credibility, trust, loyalty and legitimacy as Nothhaft and Wehmeier （2007） put that the alternative paradigm of communication roles of managers has a kind of a natural fit to what is often regarded as core functions of communication management, namely, gaining （and not demanding） credibility, trust, loyalty and legitimacy.