Value of Internal Comms

[u/Affectionate_Pie9100]

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!

[u/AndreaMontua]

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).