“It’s time to change”: A recap of this week’s #WeLeadComms debate

by Mike Klein:

In hosting this week’s #WeLeadComms debate on the question of “Do #Comms Pros need to change?”, something struck me hard. While everyone’s talking about AI – and yes, it topped our quick poll of 2025 trends – we’re facing something much bigger and more fundamental: a fight for our own future as communication professionals.

The debate was co-sponsored by the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence and Strategic, moderated by Strategic’s Publisher and Founder Orla Clancy, and featured Bonnie Caver, Preston Lewis, and Richard Etienne.

This isn’t just another “comms needs to be more strategic” conversation. This is about recognizing that we’re at a critical turning point where we either evolve dramatically or watch our profession get hollowed out from the inside.

The Wake-Up Call

What really hit home was Bonnie Caver’s warning about falling into what she called “the efficiency crevice” – becoming so obsessed with AI-driven efficiency that we could lose the human connection that makes our work valuable. As she pointed out, “We’ll could all just be the same. The differentiation will be gone because we’ll just be talking content to content that’s all created from the same databases.”

We’re already seeing this happen. Preston Lewis shared a particularly resonant example: AI-powered job interviews. As he noted, “All interviews should be a two-way conversation… As somebody who’s considering a role or a job, you want the opportunity to say, ‘Well, gee, what’s it like to work there?’ There’s a human element, that dialog that is not supported by a robotic approach.”

The Crisis of Value

Here’s what’s really keeping me up at night: while we’re obsessing about AI tools, we’re simultaneously facing a systematic devaluation of our profession. Seeing senior, strategic communications pros with their “open to work” banners up for months, while organizations post jobs asking for ridiculous skill sets at junior salaries.

As Preston pointed out during the debate, we’re sitting in “this important moment in time where there’s still a lot of unanswered questions.” But instead of using this uncertainty to claim our strategic ground, too many of us are letting ourselves be reduced to “prompt engineers” and automation managers.

The Trust Imperative

One of the most powerful points in the debate came from Preston when he said that “trust is the one thing, that space, if you will, that we can own.” He highlighted the growing trust gap between those making decisions about technology and those who have to live with its consequences. This is exactly where we need to position ourselves – as the professionals who can bridge these gaps and build the trust that organizations desperately need.

Richard reinforced this by highlighting the growing challenge of employee activism. As he noted, “With a lot of the issues that are happening across the globe… you have one set of colleagues saying, ‘Why are we as an organization not talking about that issue?’ as opposed to another set saying, ‘Actually, no, it’s good that we keep quiet.'” This is exactly the kind of complex, human challenge that AI can’t solve – but that skilled communications professionals can help navigate.

An Action Plan

So what do we do about it? Several clear priorities emerged from the debate:

1. Build Risk-Based Business Cases: As I noted during the discussion, even with the best skills, it’s challenging to build ROI business cases for thousands of pounds or dollars. But in today’s environment, we can credibly make risk-based business cases in the millions – and in some cases, billions. The missing ingredient? Enough documented examples of what goes wrong when you don’t have experienced communication resources looking at what organizations need to do and say.
2. Fight the Deprofessionalization Trend: This isn’t just about defending senior salaries. It’s about protecting the strategic capability of our profession. As Bonnie pointed out, we need to move from internships to apprenticeships, recognizing that entry-level positions will increasingly be handled by AI. The challenge is how to develop the strategic thinking and advisory skills that will be crucial for our profession’s future.
3. Reset our Relationship with Technology: Richard Etienne made a crucial point when he said, “Core communications principles are clarity, empathy, storytelling. Those remain timeless.” Our challenge isn’t to resist AI but to ensure it enhances rather than replaces these fundamental human skills.
4. Transform Our Approval Processes: Bonnie highlighted how we need to fundamentally reset our relationship with legal teams, noting that “we’re going to have to be very agile in how fast we work.” This means moving from transaction-by-transaction approvals to framework-based guidance that allows for rapid response.

A Path Forward

The most powerful moment in the debate came when we discussed how Covid-19 opened leaders’ eyes to our true value. As Bonnie noted, leaders suddenly realized, “Oh my goodness, you can move the needle of my company, because you know them (our stakeholders) better than anyone else. You are constantly listening to all stakeholders and you’re problem solvers.”

This is the opportunity we need to seize. Not just adapting to AI, but fundamentally resetting how we position ourselves and our profession. We need to move from being seen as the “content people” to being recognized as the professionals who help organizations navigate an increasingly complex and risky environment.

Will this be easy? As we said repeatedly in the debate: “Oh no.” But as communication leaders, this is what we do. We identify problems. We raise their profile. We crowdsource ideas. We socialize those ideas. Then we bring solutions to life.

The alternative? Watching our profession become increasingly marginalized as AI takes over the tactical aspects of our work while we fail to claim the strategic ground that should be ours.

This is our moment. We can either let ourselves be defined by our tools, or we can fight for our future as strategic advisors and organizational leaders. Does that mean we need to change?  Well, it’s time for a change.

Written by: Editor