The different perceptions of professional communications
One of Elm’s core service offerings is an operational review. We work with communications teams to identify what’s getting in the way of them doing their best work and what would help them perform more strategically, consistently and sustainably.
To be fair, we’re rarely invited in when everything is humming along perfectly. It means what we hear often comes from teams under pressure, stretched thin, or feeling stuck.
But over time, a pattern has emerged. Communicators’ perceptions of what we do and how we do it differ significantly from those of our internal stakeholders.
We asked communicators and their stakeholders the same questions — and got different answers
Across dozens of reviews, we’ve gathered survey data from both communication teams and their internal stakeholders, alongside interviews and document reviews.
In every review, we assess teams against a consistent set of core communication competencies that together represent the fundamentals of a communications function:
- Strategic communication — How well communications support organisational priorities and decision-making, and how we plan our work.
- Communications delivery — The quality, clarity and effectiveness of outputs like channels, products or content.
- Service delivery — How teams work with, support and prioritise their stakeholders, otherwise known as good old customer service.
Elm’s operational review framework
When we pull all that data together, some clear, recurring themes emerge, raising important questions about why so many communication teams struggle with the same challenges.
The persistent perception gap
Across almost every review, communication teams rate their performance higher than their internal stakeholders do. There is about a 15% different in perception between the two groups’ ratings.
That, in itself, is surprising to me as normally, we are our own worst critics. But we also understand how much work, negotiation and effort goes into what we produce.
What is striking is where the gap is largest: strategic communication about a 19% difference in ratings. The differences are much smaller for delivery (8.5%) and customer service (14.5%).
This suggests that many communication teams feel they are being as strategic as their context allows, but that strategic value isn’t always visible or experienced by the people they support.
Why might that be?
The hidden strategic value
What we consistently hear is that communications teams aren’t invited in early enough to shape thinking or provide advice, only to execute decisions. They are frustrated about not being able to influence how communications are considered and delivered.
Conversely, internal stakeholders want communications teams to be “more strategic”, but when we push them on what that would look like, everyone has a very different idea (or no ideas).
One of the biggest perception gaps in strategic communications was about the communication team’s ability to facilitate understanding of the communication needs of key audiences. While communicators felt they were doing this really well, stakeholders weren’t seeing it or understanding it.
Typically, what stakeholders see is the tactics: the media coverage or social post, the web page, or the report. They don’t consider that strategy, experience, and expertise sit behind it.
We also know that teams are so busy responding to short-term demands that they struggle to create space for longer-term thinking.
In reality, all of these things can be (and are) true at once.
Tactical delivery is a strength because it’s the only thing they see
One consistent piece of good news is that communication teams are widely recognised for producing high-quality work. Stakeholders regularly tell us that what the team delivers is timely, professional and effective.
Teams are rightly proud of what they deliver, but that strength can be double-edged. Because delivery is so visible (and often so seamless), and teams often go above and beyond to deliver on time, it can mask the strategic thinking. In some cases, teams may even make it look too easy. The result? Communications is valued as a reliable production service, rather than a strategic partner.
And so the cycle begins…
The perception gap in the delivery of communications centres on accountability – who is leading its delivery. Communications teams feel they have accountability or ownership over what is created, while business areas believe they do.
Service delivery is where expectations diverge most sharply
Service delivery ratings are often the biggest surprise for communication teams. Many feel they are bending over backwards to support the organisation, yet stakeholder scores are, on average, 26% lower than those of the communication teams.
When we dig deeper, a clear theme emerges: inconsistency.
Some stakeholders report excellent experiences, while others don’t. Some feel they have a great relationship with the team, while others never engage with the team. In short, we aren’t consistently providing great customer service.
The inconsistency is usually linked to a lack of clarity around:
- The team’s operating model – how they service the organisation.
- How priorities are set – what is prioritised and why some work is prioritised over others.
- Service levels – Who does what when and how long will it take.
Without shared understanding, clear communication and transparent decision-making, even well-intentioned teams can appear unresponsive or unfair.
Pulling it all together
Taken together, our reviews suggest that many communication teams are already delivering strong outcomes. The bigger opportunity lies in telling the organisation how we work and why it’s important!
A clear, well-understood operating model builds confidence. Consistent service and delivery builds trust. Trust increases the likelihood that stakeholders will come to you early. Early involvement makes strategic advice more visible and more valuable (and your work more satisfying).
None of this happens overnight. It is something that you need to work at every day. But the payoff is significant: communication teams supported by clear systems, shared expectations, and genuine partnerships can do their best work more often.
Other blogs you might be interested in: