Rethinking Internal Communications: The Flaw in Saying ‘No’

Telling internal communications teams to say no to business requests for support is bad advice.

Katie Hickman is founder of Confluent Strategic Communications.

It has become common advice for communicators aiming to move beyond being order takers: Stop saying yes to every request, push back on tactical work, and learn to say no.

The frustration behind this advice is understandable. Internal communications teams are often involved after decisions have been made, handed a list of deliverables, and expected to execute. They write emails, build presentations, or distribute announcements without being part of the conversations that shaped the changes.

However, telling the business no does not make communications more strategic. Instead, it distances the function from the business and reinforces the perception that communications is merely a service department that either fulfills requests or obstructs progress.

The solution is not to reject more requests but to change the conversation.

Start with the Business Need

When a department approaches communications with a request, it presents an opportunity to build a relationship. Rather than immediately accepting or rejecting the deliverable, communicators should ask questions. What is the business trying to accomplish? What’s changing? Who is affected? What do employees need to understand or do?

The request may be for an email, but the underlying need could be much larger. Communications teams must grasp that need before recommending an approach.

Sometimes, the answer will still be an email. Being strategic does not mean turning every request into a major initiative; it means understanding the purpose behind the work and assisting the business in achieving it.

Visibility Doesn’t Mean Ownership

In a recent collaboration with a regional grocery retailer, communications had primarily engaged with the corporate level. Individual departments sent information to stores independently, leading to a flood of one-off emails that store directors had to sort through, often resulting in important information not reaching employees.

Store associates typically lack direct access to company email or other established communication channels. The store director often serves as the primary link between corporate priorities and employees. When inundated with disconnected messages, vital information may fail to reach those who need it.

Feedback from employees indicated a communication gap that was affecting company culture. The organization also had ambitious growth goals, necessitating that employees understand the business direction, its significance, and how their roles contribute.

As the communications team reached out to departments to understand ongoing initiatives, requests began to flow in. Each department had its own initiatives and information to share, making it impossible for the team to produce everything. However, telling departments no would have undermined the engagement the team sought to build.

The opportunity lay in establishing governance.

Centralized visibility does not equate to centralized production. Communications teams need to understand organizational happenings but do not need to create every deliverable. Some initiatives require communications expertise from the outset, such as shaping narratives and aligning leaders, while others may only need visibility for message coordination. Routine communications can often be managed by departments using templates and guidance from communications.

Visibility allows the internal communications team to strategically advise the business without owning every message.

Governance Requires Both Sides

Governance clarifies when communications should be involved, when it needs awareness, and when departments can manage communications independently. However, a process or intake form alone will not change behavior.

Leaders must understand the importance of governance and reinforce it with their teams. If they continue to bypass communications or make decisions without considering employee impact, the model will lose credibility.

Communications has a responsibility as well. Departments need practical tools to communicate effectively without requiring hands-on support every time, such as templates, messaging guidance, channel recommendations, and clear expectations. The goal is not to become a gatekeeper but to coordinate communication while focusing the team’s expertise where it can have the greatest impact.

Don’t Wait for the Business to Come to You

If communications has historically operated behind the scenes, departments may not recognize when or why to involve the team earlier. Additionally, the term communication is often used to describe various aspects, from channels and deliverables to broader business challenges and employee issues. Not every issue labeled a communication problem can be resolved by merely sending a message. Communicators cannot simply announce a new process and expect the relationship to change.

Proactivity is essential. Regularly connecting with business areas to understand upcoming initiatives, priorities, and challenges is crucial. Asking what’s changing, where employees may be affected, and what leaders need to reinforce can reveal opportunities for message coordination across departments.

Moreover, not every conversation should center on communications.

To become a strategic partner, the team must understand the business well enough to contribute to broader discussions. Asking about goals and operational challenges, identifying where initiatives intersect, and recognizing where employees may face competing demands are vital. Bringing the employee perspective into decisions before they are finalized is how internal communications teams can demonstrate value beyond producing messages: by assisting leaders in considering how decisions will impact the people responsible for executing them successfully.

 

Source: Ragan Communications