As this posting finds me on some R&R in Scottsdale, Arizona, I'm going to take the liberty of being brief with this posting.  But one issue that has nagged me since I launched CommsOffensive325 back in January is the often arbitrary distinction between "internal" and "external" communication--and the extent to which traditional internal communicators may wish to take a much more expansive view of who is a full participant in one's internal universe.

 

Here are some of the first things that come to mind:

 

1) The Wall

 

As I mentioned during my definition of "The Pentagon Model" of internal communication back in January, the ultimate defining characteristic of an internal communication universe is the presence of a "wall", a "boundary" inside of which there is a common membership, vocabulary, and interest in topics that mean little outside of that wall.  That wall is not merely something that encloses the participants--it is also something that causes the conversations inside of the wall to reverberate, echo, and spread to others not directly involved in those conversations. 

 

A narrow view of internal communications would only place those receiving a paycheck within that wall.  But does it really make sense to put your consultants, contractors and partners outside of it?  And what about those customers and experts who drive the market dynamics--and who more often than not are in active conversation with the "staff"--does it make sense to treat them as outsiders?

 

2) The List

 

With the exception of consumer products, where it is difficult to identify all of your customers (though coming up with a list of the top 100 is far from difficult) most organizations in the public and private sector have the ability to communicate directly with those non-staff players whose influence is widely felt inside of the "wall."  With the ability to communicate directly with these key players, the rationale for treating communication with those players as the sole responsibility of "external communication," and particularly of focusing on reaching those players through the press, makes less and less sense.  To be sure, the press, and particularly the trade press, can be useful sources of secular information within an industry and perhaps even of third party credibility, but a case can be made that treating those key players as an internal audience can produce a sufficiently rich relationship that the third party influence of the trade press moves to secondary importance.

 

3) The Network

 

Conversations take place in networks.  First someone initiates a conversation, others join in, and then those others relay the conversations to others still.  In industries where there are a relatively small number of decision makers, and in companies with an open attitude towards feedback collection, the ability to identify whom is talking to whom about what is surprisingly easy.  Within a month, or less of using social network software, finding out whom in the organization is talking to each other--and to the key players in the industry--becomes extraordinarily easy.  With an understanding of the real communication network as it exists in an industry, it then becomes possible to manage, measure, and improve the quality of those conversations as they continue to unfold.

 

In Closing

 

I know I've opened up some big issues, but I think this is an issue internal communicators need to think seriously about.  To a large extent, it could redefine what we do.  But it could also give today's internal communicators the edge in designing and delivering a more appropriately comprehensive definition of organizational communication in the near future.