Why do communication leaders exist?

3 February 2026

Sia Papageorgiou:

Most communication professionals can describe their role with ease.

They manage channels, they develop content, they advise leaders, they support change, they help people understand what’s happening – the list goes on…and on.

But when I ask a different question, even very experienced professionals often hesitate.

Why does your role exist in this organisation?

Not why communication matters in principle. Why your function exists here, in this organisation, with its specific pressures, constraints and accountabilities.

Until communication leaders can answer that question clearly, their influence will always be limited. Not because their work lacks importance but because its value has not been translated into terms their organisation recognises.

Every organisation runs on money but not every communication professional is taught to think about their work in those terms.

There’s a persistent discomfort in our profession when it comes to talking about money.

Many communication professionals assume that financial impact only applies in commercial settings. If you don’t sell products, generate revenue or operate in a competitive market, the thinking goes, the “money conversation” doesn’t really apply.

That assumption is wrong.

Every organisation makes decisions about how money is spent, protected, allocated and justified. Communication exists within that reality, not outside it.

In public sector environments, poor communication shows up as inefficiency, duplication, delays, complaints and rework. In not-for-profit organisations, unclear priorities and weak communication affect funding stability, donor confidence and staff retention. In regulated or high-risk environments, communication failures increase exposure, remediation costs and reputational damage.

Money is always involved. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, but always materially.

If communication leaders cannot explain how their work affects the organisation’s use of resources, they leave that story to others. And others will usually reduce it to “support” or “nice to have.”

Why activity feels safer than value

One reason communication professionals stay focused on activity is that activity feels concrete. You can point to what you’ve delivered. You can demonstrate your responsiveness. You can show volume, speed and effort. And all of that feels defensible.

Value is harder.

Value requires you to explain consequences. It requires you to link your communication decisions to organisational outcomes. It forces you to confront uncomfortable questions about whether something truly made a difference or simply kept people busy.

But let me be crystal clear. If you cannot describe the cost of poor communication in your organisation, you will struggle to demonstrate the value of good communication.

What commercial thinking looks like in practice

Being commercially minded is about understanding cause and effect.

For example, instead of saying, “This communication will improve awareness of the new process.”

A more credible framing is, “When people don’t understand the process, they create workarounds. That leads to errors, slows delivery and increases rework. This communication is designed to prevent that.”

Strategic credibility comes from going one step further again.

In a commercial organisation, that same issue might sound like this: “Each error triggers rework across multiple teams. That rework pulls people away from revenue-generating activity, delays delivery and increases our operating costs. Clear communication upfront reduces those errors and protects productivity.”

In a government environment, it might be framed as, “When people apply the process inconsistently, we see higher complaint volumes, longer processing times and increased demand on contact centres. That drives up our operational costs and diverts resources from priority services. Clear communication reduces that pressure and improves efficiency.”

In each case, the communication activity is similar. What changes is the articulation of value.

It’s the difference between, “this will help people understand” and “this will reduce cost, protect resources or improve efficiency.”

Translating communication into value

Imagine you’re asked to communicate a new operational process.

A tactical response sounds like this: “We’ll send an email, update the intranet and run a briefing session to explain the process.”

A strategic response sounds like this: “When this process was rolled out last time, inconsistent understanding led to errors, rework and delays. That increased workload across operations and support teams and slowed overall delivery. This communication is designed to reduce those errors, shorten turnaround times and free up capacity.”

Notice what changed.

The second version doesn’t talk about channels or outputs. It talks about consequences, effort saved and resources protected. That’s the language leaders recognise.

So, before you say yes to your next piece of work, ask yourself one question. 

What does poor communication cost this organisation?

Cost might show up as time, money, effort, risk, reputation, trust or staff capacity. You don’t need a precise dollar figure, but you do need a clear line of sight.

If you can answer that question, you’re already thinking more strategically than most.

Why understanding why you exist changes your influence

When communication leaders are clear on why their role exists, everything else becomes easier.

They ask better questions because they understand what the organisation is trying to protect or achieve. They push back more confidently because they can explain the cost of getting it wrong. They are brought into conversations earlier because their contribution is seen as influencing outcomes, not just drafting messages.

This is where strategic influence actually shows up. 

Without that clarity, communication stays busy, well-intentioned and technically sound, while still being sidelined when it matters most.

Building the confidence to talk about value and money

Developing this capability requires communication professionals to step outside the comfort of delivery and examine their work through an organisational lens.

That’s why I’m hosting a Strategic Communication Mastermind as part of Strategic’s masterclass series.

My focus isn’t on frameworks for their own sake. It’s on helping experienced communication leaders strengthen their judgment, sharpen their business framing and become more confident articulating how their work creates value, protects resources and supports better decisions.

If communication leaders want to be taken seriously as strategic advisors, they need to understand and articulate why they exist in organisational terms.

Communication doesn’t struggle because it’s not important. It struggles because its value is too often described in language that never leaves the function.

And that’s a problem we can fix.

+++

Sia Papageorgiou is the Co-Founder of the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence and is a Strategic Columnist