Internal Comms Teams Gain More by Asking Than by Saying No

By Elena Vasquez

Internal communications teams that refuse business requests do not become more strategic, according to Katie Hickman, founder of Confluent Strategic Communications. They simply distance themselves from the business.

Hickman targets a familiar piece of industry advice in a new essay published by Ragan Communications: communicators should stop saying yes to every request, push back on tactical work and learn to say no. She calls that counsel a fallacy.

The frustration behind the advice is real, she acknowledges. Internal communications teams are often brought in after decisions are made. They receive a list of deliverables and execute: the email, the presentation, the announcement. They never join the conversations that shaped the change.

But rejection is not the remedy. "Telling the business no doesn't make communications more strategic," Hickman writes. "It pushes the function further away from the business and reinforces the perception that communications is simply a service department that either fulfills a request or gets in the way."

What should teams do instead of refusing?

Hickman's answer: change the conversation. When a department brings a request, treat it as an opportunity to build the relationship. Ask questions before accepting or rejecting the work.

• What is the business trying to accomplish?
• What is changing?
• Who is affected?
• What do employees need to understand or do?

The stated request may be an email while the underlying need is far larger. Communications must understand that need before recommending an approach. Sometimes the answer is still an email. "Being strategic doesn't mean turning every request into a major initiative," Hickman writes. "It means understanding the purpose behind the work and helping the business achieve it."

What does the grocery retailer case show?

Hickman draws on a recent engagement with a regional grocery retailer. Communications there had largely spoken to the corporate level. Individual departments sent information to stores independently, with little coordination. Store directors received a steady stream of one-off emails and had to sort through competing priorities themselves.

The structural problem ran deep. Store associates had no company email or other established direct channel. The store director served as the primary connection between corporate priorities and frontline employees. When that person drowned in disconnected messages, important information failed to reach the people who needed it.

Employee feedback confirmed the damage: communication was lacking, and it was affecting culture. The company also had ambitious growth goals that required employees to understand where the business was going and how their work contributed.

When the communications team reached out to departments, requests came pouring in. Every department had initiatives to share. The team could not produce everything. Yet refusing would have undermined the very engagement it was trying to build.

Why governance, not ownership, is the answer?

Hickman's solution was governance. Her central distinction: centralized visibility does not mean centralized production.

Some initiatives require communications expertise from the start, such as shaping the narrative, understanding employee impact and aligning leaders. Other requests need only visibility so messages can be coordinated. Routine communications can be handled by departments using templates and guidance from the communications team.

Governance clarifies three situations: when communications should be involved, when it needs awareness only, and when departments can manage communications themselves. Hickman warns that a process or intake form alone will not change behavior. Leaders must understand why governance matters and reinforce it with their teams. If they continue to bypass communications, the model loses credibility.

Communications carries responsibility too. Departments need practical tools to communicate without hands-on support: templates, messaging guidance, channel recommendations and clear expectations. "The goal isn't to become a gatekeeper," Hickman writes. "It's to coordinate communication while focusing the team's expertise where it has the greatest impact."

Can communicators wait for the business to come to them?

No, Hickman argues. Departments may not know when or why to involve communications earlier. She also notes that people use the word communication to describe everything from channels and deliverables to broad business challenges. Not every problem labeled a communication problem is solved by sending a message.

Her prescription is proactive. Teams should regularly connect with business areas to understand upcoming initiatives, priorities and challenges. They should identify where initiatives intersect or where employees face competing demands. And they should not make every conversation about communications.

Hickman closes with the value proposition. Internal communications teams demonstrate worth beyond producing messages by helping leaders think through how decisions will affect the people responsible for making them successful.