Liam Fitzpatrick (of BlackBelt Dojo) and I have been known to have differences of opinion from time to time.  So it was with much interest that I opened his article on the topic of “What does really advanced Internal Communication look like?”

It’s certainly a subject of interest to me—indeed, the question of what it would take to advance the theory, practice and mentality of internal communication is at the heart of why I launched CommsOffensive325 and why continue to blog here.  And I figured that a fairly sharp contrast could be drawn between Liam’s views on the subject and mine.

For those who don’t know Liam and his co-conspirator Sue Dewhurst: they are highly accomplished UK-based internal communicators with tons of in-house and consulting experience for blue chip companies ranging in blueness from pastel to navy.  They are the driving force behind BlackBelt Dojo, a boot camp linked with the Melcrum organisation that seeks to improve the ‘competence’ of internal communicators participating in their programmes.  Essentially, their focus is more on ‘rewriting the record book’—excelling and encouraging others to excel at the way the internal communications game is currently played.

So when I found Liam’s article, I found its main premise none-too-surprising—that those who believe who seek a “new holy grail of IC” are likely to be disappointed, and that the most “advanced” work in the internal communication field consists of old staples like “having sound systems, making links with the business strategy, and helping leaders to lead.”

I don’t disagree that the vast majority of the current work being done falls into those hoary categories.  But I violently disagree with the notion that there is no point in looking at how Internal Communication can be fundamentally reinvented and that we should instead focus on making ourselves more “competent” instead.

Despite our successes as a profession over the last twenty-or-so years, Internal Communication has yet to definitively prove its value to organisations in a way sufficient to be seen as a business necessity and as a fundamental enabler of strategy and unleasher of value in organisations.  Sure, we have a few case studies and a lot of anecdotal data, but we have yet to prove that $1 spent on internal comms will reliably produce $1.10 on the bottom line by the end of the year.  So, the case for continuing the inquiry into what we do, why we do it, and how we can channel and deliver things more effectively and efficiently is easily made on that premise alone—even if one believes that internal communication can deliver transformational rather than transactional benefits.

But more importantly, Liam’s view only really holds water if you accept a view that organisations are fundamentally hierarchical and that internal communication exists to support the smooth functioning of hierarchies.  If you accept the notion that organisations are simultaneously hierarchical and networked in nature, then it is worth recognising that very little work has been done in developing an advanced approach to internal communication that harnesses and influences the social networks in and around organisations while supporting what necessary hierarchy is required to drive an organisation towards its strategic or commercial objectives.

While the Holy Grail still eludes us, the emergence of social network tools and social network thinking are likely to play a key role in propelling the Internal Communications profession as we continue on its quest.  And with the challenges we are likely to face in the short term as the budget-cutters seek easy targets, I for one think this quest is well worth continuing.