Outgrown, outdated. Is IC better described as Internal Communication or Organisational Effectiveness?

The first IoIC Fellows-exclusive webinar was held this month debating if internal communication as a function needs to be better described to meet workplace challenges.

Against a background of a profession that’s outgrown its traditional boundaries, the session surfaced a strong consensus that the challenge facing internal communication is not primarily about naming or rebranding the function, but about clarity of IC purpose, positioning, capability and confidence.

We kicked off by hearing from our speakers, Denise Bird-Newell, Director of People, Culture and Facilities at Clarins UK Limited; Jennifer Sproul, CEO of the IoIC; and Colin Archer, Head of Communications at Spirax Sarco, who shared their views and experiences.

Here’s three key themes from the discussion:

1. The problem is not the label, it is inconsistent understanding

There was broad agreement that debates about renaming “internal communication” risk missing the point. The deeper issue is that leaders, managers and even IC practitioners themselves hold wildly different interpretations of what IC is and what it’s for.

• The term “internal communication” often triggers narrow assumptions (broadcast, channels, content).
• Rebrands alone were seen as risky and unlikely to change behaviour without substance behind them.
• What many Fellows wanted was a shared, aspirational understanding of what IC can be, particularly for organisations at lower levels of maturity.

A key tension emerged between definition and ambition. Do we need a tighter definition, or a clearer articulation of the possible scope and outcomes of IC?

2. IC’s value sits in outcomes, not outputs

A repeated frustration was that IC is still judged in many organisations by volume and reach, rather than by impact.

• “Postbox”, “spray and pray” and “content factory” mindsets persist.
• Fellows argued strongly for shifting the conversation to business outcomes: trust, decision quality, productivity, risk, change effectiveness and culture.
• Small, under-resourced teams were highlighted as often delivering greater impact than larger teams focused on output.

There was strong alignment that impact, not activity, must be the core organising principle for the profession.

3. Positioning with leaders matters more than structure or title

Where IC sits in the organisation mattered less to Fellows than how it is positioned and understood.

• Successful examples shared involved sustained education of leaders about IC’s value.
• Leadership communication emerged as a central (but incomplete) shorthand for what IC contributes.
• Confidence and proactive behaviour were recurring themes, with IC teams often surprised to find doors already open once they stepped forward.

This reinforced the idea that IC must actively claim its strategic role, rather than wait for it to be granted.

“What emerged most strongly from this Fellows discussion was not uncertainty about the future of Internal Communication, but impatience with how narrowly it is still understood,” commented IoIC CEO Jennifer Sproul.

“The profession knows its value - the challenge now is articulating it clearly, evidencing it credibly, and claiming the confidence to operate at the level organisations increasingly need.”