W(h)ither Internal Communications?

By our new guest blogger, Rob Briggs, Senior Manager, Communications RBC Wealth Management

Is IC a dead duck? Or alive and quacking? (No Bill Withers jokes...)

I don't know about you, but I'm not sure we can easily describe the function of Internal Communications is these days.

There's plenty of definitions out there, plenty of different skills you need.

But what if you're trying to establish yourself - on your own or in a company - how do you know what experience you need for an IC career?

And where the heck does IC sit in a company? Marketing? HR? Organisational Development?

A group of professional associations put some skills and competencies together a few years ago. This is a great starting point and very useful for judging where you are in your career path.

You can also use these matrices to help colleagues in their professional development or to help objectively demonstrate your skills and experience to a potentially sceptical audience.

Once settled on a course of action, organisations like Melcrum, CiB or IABC can help build you skills and advance your career.

But when I say dead duck, I don't mean the skills behind IC, I'm just thinking about the sheer breadth of knowledge and abilities you need to do this job - the term IC doesn't do it justice.

To progress in this business you need to be a first rate scribe, confidante and company psychologist.

Did I forget to mention, editor, producer, web guru, speechwriter, facilitator, mediator (more often than not), strategist and all round business polymath?

Ultimately, we manage knowledge, information and reputation. Done correctly, our jobs inform and influence the character and culture of the organisations we work with. And they save an awful lot of money in attraction, retention and efficiency improvements.

Surely there's a better descriptor for what we do? What do you think?

Comments

[Mandy]

In 2007 Melcrum did some research together with professional development experts Sue Dewhurst and Liam FitzPatrick to get a better idea of the typical roles for internal communication professionals.

The research highlighted 6 stereotypical roles: The leader, the advisor, the manager, the deliverer, the local agent and the specialist. There seems to be quite a bit of variance in terms of which role practitioners typically pursue, and also which role is best for the team, organisation, etc. (these roles are explored in depth in the report "How to develop outstanding communicators").

But in response to your question "what do we call ourselves", shortly before I read your blog I was reading an email from Jim Shaffer (US consultant, author, guru etc.). He had some strong views on what we should not call ourselves!

In typically frank style, Jim was explaining why he never uses the term "communicator". I'm sure he wouldn't mind me sharing his comments:

"I never use the word 'communicator' because I think it further demeans the role and pigeon holes people into the 'communicator' role. My dog communicates. Everyone communicates. Some people have the skills and knowledge to manage communication. They’re communication practitioners or professionals."

I thought that was worth adding to the discussion!