Do we need to go where we’ve always gone before? A contrarian view on the IoIC Trends Report

23 January 2026

Mike Klein:

I’m a Fellow of the Institute of Internal Communication. That makes the IoIC’s new whitepaper, The Future of Internal Communication, particularly puzzling to read. 

The document reflects input from a cross-section of IoIC members and leadership – so it isn’t IoIC’s definitive view. But it appears to represent where much of the profession’s collective thinking currently sits. 

The 33-page report acknowledges transformation pressures facing the profession. But rather than exploring what a genuinely transformed future might require, it reflects a desire among IC professionals to reinforce IC’s traditional soft-side positioning.

Which makes it worth asking: is this really where we need to be heading – or is it pointing us toward a dead end?

This is a comfortable space for many practitioners. In my view, this is existentially dumb positioning.

Why are we avoiding the AI opportunity?

The most puzzling aspect of the report: what it doesn’t say about AI.

It raises all of the arguments why communication practitioners see AI as a threat:

• “GenAI promises untold efficiency at a fraction of the price of human capital”
• It’s “entirely feasible GenAI is already being deployed…as a cheaper alternative to thoughtfully crafted, empathic communication”
• “A core proposition of AI is that it will do our thinking for us”
• This “invites us not to think” and is “dangerous” biologically and societally

But the conclusion? Organizations must “prioritise building emotional connection and psychological alignment” because “this work falls into the natural domain of internal communication.”

Here’s what the report doesn’t explore: How might the AI-driven acceleration of business processes actually transform IC’s role?

This acceleration creates an opportunity for IC to position itself as the core connective discipline and infrastructure for organizations as they slim down, speed up, and devolve decision-making. 

It could be embraced as a generational opportunity to transform the perception of IC as being existential for organizations.

But rather than embrace or even highlight this opportunity, it calls for a doubling down on IC’s current orientation. 

For a document positioning itself as forward-looking – is this really the take?

Why does clarity come so late in the report?

Clarity doesn’t appear as a distinctive concept until page 10 of the report.

What shows up early? Empathy, connection, belonging.

This suggests a particular understanding of IC’s value: that IC exists primarily to make people feel “good” (or perhaps more candidly, “less bad”) about work, with operational effectiveness as afterthought.

But is this actually how IC functions in organizations where it commands strategic respect?

The field research in India I did with top Indian IC consultant Ambuj Dixit of ThoughtCom suggests something different. 

In those organizations where IC commands strategic resources and influence, practitioners lead with clarity and coordination. They reduce ambiguity in how work gets done. Human outcomes emerge as consequences, not explicit goals.

Our India research will be released later this month. While it’s not a comprehensive audit of Indian IC practices, it highlights trends and realities the report doesn’t address:

• IC reducing ambiguity → employees feel less insecure
• IC prioritizing information flows → workers experience less chaos
• IC spelling out practices and principles as decision criteria → people escalate less

Why continue to anchor to engagement?

The report cites the 2009 MacLeod report and its claim that “internal communication underpins colleague engagement and performance.”

But MacLeod’s own report acknowledges “50 different definitions of employee engagement.” So why anchor IC’s business case to a concept so poorly defined it’s essentially meaningless as a performance metric?

And given how the ever-increasing pace of layoffs and delayering is changing the business social contract, is “employee engagement” even the right framework anymore?

That this approach still appears in a 2025 document about IC’s future raises the question: Are we trying to chart a viable path forward, or preserve comfortable professional territory?

Why resist real measurement?

Three pages on “The business case for internal communication” somehow avoid clear mention of “return on investment.” Instead the report says such a business case “requires continuous, thoughtful, empathic internal communication” and that IC’s value lies in “understanding the specific hopes and expectations of each internal stakeholder.”

The report even features the hashtag “#ReturnOnEmotion” on its front page rather than demonstrating measurable operational impact or financial contribution.

The report does later acknowledge that “demonstrating measurable impact is vital” but provides almost nothing on how to actually do the kind of measurement that would demonstrate that impact. And a lengthy section on advocacy makes zero mention of the measurement required to back advocacy up.

Is this positioning IC professionals for success? Or for marginalization?

Embodied or embedded?

The report envisions IC becoming “a far more ’embodied’ discipline, focused on encouraging the human relationships that underpin organisational cohesion.”

Not embedded in operations. Not enabling faster, clearer decisions. Embodied. As philosophy. As a way of being.

What we found in Indian organizations where IC commands resources suggests they’ve embraced something quite different—the embedded model:

• IC professionals supporting operational units
• KPIs tied to production metrics, safety performance, sales velocity
• Leading with coordination architecture that reduces operational friction
• Relationships improve as consequence, not explicit goal

Why steer practitioners toward the embodied model—positioning that may feel good professionally and personally, but leaves them exposed when budgets tighten?

Do we really need to: 

Double down on “human-centric” positioning?

Defend emotional territory?

Frame AI mainly as a threat? 

Keep measuring through engagement scores and other soft metrics?

There is another way: 

Demonstrate operational indispensability through clarity. 

Measure impact on real business metrics. 

Position AI as a capability multiplier and recognize its role as a systemic accelerator. 

Lead with effectiveness.

Consider how these play out in practice. When CFOs review budgets, does “we build emotional connection” and “#ReturnOnEmotion” create the same conversation as “we contributed 5% to fixing a £100 million business problem”?

The profession has limited time to make strategic choices about positioning. But this report – apparently reflecting where much of the profession’s thinking currently sits – seems to encourage resistance to transformation rather than engagement with it.

This isn’t about criticizing the IoIC as an institution. It’s about asking whether a report focused on steering IC toward a familiar destination is defining a viable future – or is leading us down a dead end.

Do we need to go where we’ve always gone before? Or is it time to consider a different path?

+++

Mike Klein, IABC Fellow and FIIC, is a strategic communications consultant based in Reykjavik and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Magazine. This article draws on recent field research into internal communication transformation conducted in India with Ambuj Dixit of ThoughtCom.