On These Questions, the Future of IC is in our Hands

Mike Klein

In a speech to the CEB-Gartner Internal Communication Summit in London last week, I challenged fellow practitioners to answer four questions, the outcome of which will shape the profession for the coming years.

Talking about Internal Communication's (IC's) future doesn’t just have to address what’s going to happen in the future, it also needs to consider what’s happening, or not happening, right now. And IC’s future comes down to answering a number of questions correctly and without delay.

For the most part, these questions have still not been addressed adequately, and resolving even one could radically impact the future in a positive way.

Most pertinently, we as IC practitioners could potentially decide the answers. That would, however, require far higher confidence than what we are collectively exhibiting at the moment.


The first of these questions is: "Are we to focus on outcomes or technology?"

  • I define outcomes as "what the business can achieve with our involvement.

  • "In this context, technology means "what tools and channels to acquire (and then use, even if not entirely appropriate to the given task)"

We IC folk like to say we focus on outcomes, but technology often steals the show. Partly that's because of the eternal allure of new Bright Shiny Things, be they video platforms, enhanced intranets, or other whizzy tools.

Bright shiny things can be great. But with their purchase often comes a need to justify the investment, which means that IC needs to be seen to be using the new channel even for inappropriate purposes. This need for conspicuous use of new channels is also aggravated by the unwillingness of managers and senior leaders to accept the value of less visible informal channels in driving messages and outcomes.

From a future perspective, pressures will only intensify when later generations of "bright shiny things" hit the shelves. If you think the pressure to overemphasize video is high today. wait until Virtual Reality finally makes its breakthrough.

On to the second question: "Does engagement matter more than impact?"

We live in a world where there is no consistent definition of "employee engagement," leading to a collapse of the distinction between "Engagement" v "Engagement scores", namely the results of so-called "engagement surveys," which measure, well, stuff that gets measured in "engagement surveys."

What that's led to is a belief in engagement scores as an objective unto themselves, even if no one has ever proven that improving engagement scores directly improves performance.

To improve our prospects as a profession, we need to challenge this lack of any real causal relationship between engagement and performance. Indeed, we need to be the ones to ask whether it's engagement drives performance, or if it's actually performance that drives engagement scores?

Challenging the primacy of engagement - and the siren song of all-employee "involve everyone engagement" - is critical to our future prospects. If we can get the permission to focus on engaging selectively, a resurgence in real IC strategy can reduce overload and wasted bandwidth, balance and sharpen focus on priorities, and create space for the adoption of real strategic tools like influencer research, social mapping and Organizational Network Analysis.

Third question: "How can we measure the impact of binary outcomes and what we contribute to them?"