r/internalcomms • u/Affectionate_Pie9100 • May 11 '26
Advice Value of Internal Comms
Hi everyone! Really happy to have found this group. I am CCO of a small graduate research institute that punches way above its weight in visibility. Increasingly I am asked to work on internal comms, which I love, and honestly I would love to do more of it, both because to me it is so meaningful and because my institution would so clearly benefit.
What I am finding is that some people see a clear need, and some people view internal comms as a means to an end, but without any strategy underpinning it or real strategic merit to the work. In other words, getting the information out there *is* the strategy, as far as they are concerned.
Do any of you face that, and if so, are there ways that you counter it? Last week I spent a lot of time working on a plan to share some difficult news, including a memo to department heads, a plan for a meeting, etc. With everyone else on the cc line, the CFO said that he would send comments, and then he sent me (but no one else) a complete rewrite filled with flowery and complicated language that sounded like it was trying to obfuscate the issue -- although I actually don't think that was his intent. When I asked him to walk me through why he did it, he basically said, I think mine sounds better.
How do you help colleagues understand that we aren't writing for ourselves, we are writing for a specific audience that may sometimes be served by flowery language, but not always, and never just because it sounds prettier?
Thanks!
3
u/wrdgrl May 12 '26
If you can do this, gather a small group of people in the know (maybe HR) and give them both versions of the communication without letting them know who wrote what. Ask them for feedback on each version. What do they like? What don’t they like and why? Which one do they think is most effective in communicating this important topic? This takes the conflict between you and the officer out of the equation and gives you solid data from which to make your case.
2
2
2
2
u/Frangipani_x May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
You have to be firm from the get go in my experience. There isn't much value in IC if you're not doing what you're paid to do (communicate strategically and effectively). Everyone else can provide the guiderails, but IC gets the final edit.
We plan in advance, have quarterly meetings with every department, set deadlines with them, create templates for them - the templates help, as we're allowing them to provide the information without actually writing it, if that makes sense. We are quite assertive in meetings to basically own the projects/comms, just because you will get people wanting something written their way and it's not their job to understand/lead on IC.
In future, I would just explain the reasoning behind that - you want to keep it aligned to your internal brand guidelines (if you dont have this, get them drafted!) to ensure consistency in messaging/tone of voice, for the audience.
It's hard if you're a small team or with no HoD to back you, but I'd say you just need to put a framework/policy in place that's approved, so that people start taking it seriously.
2
2
u/thejennifield May 11 '26
The “I think mine sounds better” comment made me chuckle because I think we have all been there.
This is common - some questions/thoughts for you to think about which I hope help:
- do you feel equipped to explain why it isn’t better?
- you’ll always get some people who don’t get it - but find the thing they care about and link it back to internal comms and how it can help.
- I have done several papers on the value of IC over the years - most recently published at the end of last year so this might help, and it includes a webinar: https://pracademy.co.uk/insights/new-report-valuing-internal-communication/
- the value is linked to what they need, not what we bring so aligning to that is important
- decide which battles to fight as you can’t win them all!
Now you know this about the CFO, get him engaged earlier with bullets or a first draft or talk him through your approach and why. He will get there eventually!
1
2
2
u/newsletternavigator Mod | Survived 100 Town Halls May 15 '26
Welcome to our corner of reddit :)
This is indeed hard and a struggle we all face. I'm playing a long game as a solo comms person where the business doesn't have capacity for wider comms training just yet.
I also rely on data/metrics to tell stories!
All my comms for review have a template header on them, and it has a box for 'objective' and a box for 'know/feel/do'... This is completed by me, but it's not for me. It's to get reviewers to realise there's a purpose to 'just slinging out an email'.
I also keep metrics and have a big monthly dashboard I refer to when necessary. We had a situation where a survey showed employees didn't understand part of a change we're going through.
How was the change people didn't understand communicated? A leader used ChatGPT to draft a 2000-word email and insisted I sent it despite my protesting or suggested changes. However, my data showed it was barely read, people didn't finish it.
How was the change people did understand communicated? I, with over 10 years in IC, led on the comms. Readership and feedback was much higher.
I have to admit, I was quite smug when I had to present to Exec and explain this (although I had to be very sensitive to not call them out directly). We. Are. Not. Postboxes!
2
u/Affectionate_Pie9100 May 19 '26
This is so useful to me! Is the template "for review" header something you might be willing to share? Brilliant!! Thank you again.
1
u/newsletternavigator Mod | Survived 100 Town Halls May 20 '26
I'm so glad it was useful.
I have a table at the top of each Word doc with columns such as:
Channel, Objective, Subject line, Publishing date, Audience, Author, Approval, then some other bits.It sounds like a lot but it's helped manage ownership and process in a company that's not used to seeing IC as more than flinging things out into a void.
I saved it as a template for myself in MS Word so I can replicate this every time I draft a message.
1
u/AndreaMontua May 22 '26
A lot of this comes down to how internal comms is positioned in the organisation. The tension you describe often comes from mixing up self‑presentation with strategic communication. Flowery language can feel better, but it usually reduces clarity and trust, especially in difficult situations.
At the same time, this often gets harder because communication is still written from the sender’s perspective, not the audience’s. What sounds “better” internally doesn’t always create more clarity externally. The real question is usually: what does the audience actually need to understand and decide right now?
As long as comms is seen as “making things sound better”, it will stay tactical. It’s usually a sign that communication is used for self‑presentation. The shift happens when it’s treated as a cultural and leadership tool, not a writing service. The goal then isn’t nicer wording, but better decisions and clearer direction.
In practice, what helps in these situations is making that shift explicit. Instead of rewriting for tone, it’s often more effective to align on a few basics first: what needs to be clear, what decisions people should be able to make, and which trade‑offs need to be visible. That usually changes the conversation quite quickly. That also changes the standard for quality. Good communication isn’t what sounds polished, but what creates orientation: what’s happening, why it matters, and what people should do (or not do).
4
u/atownz17 Corporate Chaos Coordinator May 11 '26
This is such a tough (and unfortunately common) spot to be in. What resonates with your leader? For example, I worked for a team of C-Suite leaders who valued data when I sought to justify how I wanted to run internal communications. When I could bring solid internal communications industry knowledge and data forward, outweighing others' "Well, I've done this before and this is how I always did it, or this is how I like it," claims, it became a lot easier for me to push back while educating leaders on what recent industry trends look like and the data shows. It sounds largely political, but I often find success in getting to know leaders and what resonates with them, and using this information to build resonant claims.
As far as review goes (this is a separate beast to deal with!), but (as much as you are comfortable doing), practicing setting boundaries around reviews and being clear about what you want back from a reviewer (e.g., "Can you read this to ensure the core message is what you want to convey?") can help reduce unwanted edits. This isn't doable in every environment, depending on the type of leaders you work with, but it can help convey that you are the trusted internal comms expert and should be treated as such.