A Model for Internal Comms

For too long the debate about what Internal Comms is exactly has been muddied by intermingled words such as Employee Engagement and employee satisfaction.

Yes - these are important, however, they are NOT internal comms.

The remit for internal comms seems as deep as it is wide with teams often expected to deliver high employee engagement, culture change, ESG & DEI initiatives and more. So where exactly are the boundaries on IC? And how can we know when to push back?

A Model for Internal Comms

Below I present my model which outlines the boundaries on what is IC - and what is not.

The context for IC

1) Context

Firstly, you'll notice that IC operates within a business. ie, there is a business XYZ Company which is in a business/economic environment and the prevailing or favourable winds that come its way.

The Leadership team sets the strategy, vision and values that the business wishes to abide by and adhere to. This creates a particular culture within the organisation (how we do things here) and a climate (how it feels to work here).

Within this climate, we find activities such as employee engagement - driven by senior management to ensure that employees are aware of the wider picture and how their role fits into the overall landscape of working at XYZ Company. And likewise, we have the groundswell of employee voice - employees aiming and wanting to have their voice heard. In a modern work environment, XYZ Company cannot afford to ignore the voice of its employees.

2) The Team

We find the Internal Comms team (or sole practitioner!) sitting neatly in the middle, taking the steer from the employee engagement strategies, and in turn ensuring that employee voice is heard.

The Internal Comms Strategy will guide all the activity that the team does. This enables the team to have focus and agreement on the boundaries of what they do, how they do it and how much they're able to push back. A strategy provides vision and direction for the work of the team rather than approaching all communications as equal (we're loosing market value and are at risk of a hostile takeover vs the men's toilet on the 3rd floor of the Irish office is blocked for example).

3) Pillars of work

Within the internal comms specialism I highlight several pillars of work - BAU Comms, Business Partnering, Change Comms and Crisis Comms. You will note that here I use my words carefully. I do not refer to Change full-stop; but rather Change Communications. The Internal Comms team is not responsible for the change per se, (whether Digital Transformation change, culture change or structural change such as redundancy or M&A) but they should be involved in communicating to the organisation the impacts, timelines and reasons for said change.

Likewise, BAU Communications - the IC team are not responsible for managing and running the charity partnership which forms part of your corporate citizenship strategy, however they're likely to be involved in communicating that there is a new charity partner and how employees can contribute.

And when a crisis is happening, you want someone at the helm managing the flow of information within the organisation don't you? (Fake news and press leaks anyone?)

Business Partnering may seem like an anomaly here - it's nothing to do with Comms is it? But why wouldn't you expect your communications experts to come alongside your team and help them to improve comms within their teams? Clear communication is the heartbeat for a business, and the consequence of getting it wrong can be catastrophic. The tone of an email can make or break a relationship, and clarity (particularly when under pressure) is important.

Another important aspect of business partnering is that of being the critical friend to senior leaders. This means helping them to view their communications through the eyes of their employees on the shop floor, and encouraging them to communicate with authenticity and credibility in alignment to the company values, culture and climate.

Conclusion

• I've argued that the IC team is not responsible for Employee Engagement or Employee Voice, and neither is it responsible for ESG, DEI or change initiatives.

• IC sits within a business context. The context has an influence on the work that is done, but the IC team is not responsible for creating the context. The work that they do can - and should - reinforce the context, however they are not responsible for it,

• The IC team should not be viewed simply as a postal delivery service - they are a team of highly trained and skilled communicators who can be effective business partners to help employees at all levels across the organisation to communicate with clarity and effectiveness.

What would you add?