GameChange: Why “Employee Communication” will stomp “Internal Communication”

Mike Klein–Commscrum Brussels

For many years—particularly in the UK—the term “employee communication” was seen as a mark of derision, an afterthought—something suitable to describe secretaries and ex-journos writing  canned and boring newsletters.

In its place, about 15 years ago, the term “internal communication” arose, a moniker seen more to reflect a serious role for communication as a driver of performance and productivity, a means of aligning organizational activities with organizational strategy, and more recently, as a vehicle for driving something popularly called “employee engagement”.

All of these items on this “internal communication” agenda undoubtedly remain valid, and in many cases critical.  But the world surrounding organizations has changed so profoundly in just the last two years that we are now seeing a resurgent “employee communication” paradigm incorporating the following realms of employee activity:

  • External communication—engagement with customers and neighbors
  • Political communication—engagement with issue activists, with stakeholders asking uncomfortable questions about their organization’s practices, and in some cases as citizen-lobbyists engaging politicians and the media
  • Social communication—engaging electronically through online social networks and social media
  • Internal communication—focusing on doing work and achieving mutually beneficial results.

Are all of these suddenly of equal importance?  NO.  Their importance will vary, particularly by organization,  and especially in terms of the extent organizations are exposed to the following factors:

  • Brand visibility
  • Involvement in unpopular or controversial activities
  • Regulation by political or regulatory bodies
  • High consumption of carbon-rich fuels

Those factors will largely determine the extent to which employee credibility will need to be leveraged and mobilized as an organizational asset in the coming months and years.

Indeed, the main distinction between “internal communication” and the new definition of “employee communication” is that “internal communication” has focused solely on organizational productivity.  Successful employee communicators will need to focus both on productivity and credibility.  That’s the game change.  Those who don’t change with the game could well get stomped.

Dan Gray – CommScrum London

It’s probably not in the spirit of the Commscum when I say that I agree with you 100% — with the small caveat, that is, that we must be careful not to get side-tracked by the usual nauseating (and completely pointless) debates about the relative merits of competing definitions.

Provided people concentrate on the substance of the changes you describe — rather than focusing on the labels you’ve given them — then we should be on for an interesting discussion.

The killer point is about leveraging employee credibility outside the organisation (which obviously renders “internal communication” something of a misnomer).  We used to talk about alignment of internal and external comms, but that age has passed. The boundaries have disappeared and we are entering an age of fusion.

Why? Because talking to different people as if they belonged to distinct and static audiences called “employees”, “customers”, “investors” and “media” is just daft in today’s world. In a different breath, the same person could be occupying any one (or more) of these states.

And because brands don’t exist in isolation either. They aren’t what companies say they are, they’re what they say they are. Authenticity is impossible without transparency and, particularly for corporate and service brands, it’s increasingly dependent on the proper branding of internal culture.

Lindsay Uittenbogaard – Commscrum The Netherlands

So to regroup so far…  I am reading that Mike is observing the increasing take up of employees to vast and varied communication opportunities that pose significant organizational value – or risk.   Dan is supporting this and adding depth to the case, pointing out that with today’s such fused audiences and the requirement for truly authentic brands – employees have more influence than ever before.

Absolutely they have – but getting back to the core role of professional communicators, here’s the scrum.   Employee / Internal Communication doesn’t just need to focus on productivity and credibility, it needs way more investment so that it can be managed like it’s never been managed before.

Take an old concept – employee ambassadorship – and give it 20 cans of Red Bull and a red hot poker.  That’s what we’re talking about.  The more information that employees have access to and the more they can push out themselves means :

  • the role of the line manager becomes more critical (as behaviour exemplifiers, leaders, inspirers and temperers)
  • the value of / requirement for professional communication management increases (message creation and dissemination, knowledge sharing facilitation, communication awareness and competence building among employees)
  • and the relevance of senior leadership involvement in communication deepens (as sponsors and key proponents of culture changing activities – such as determining the core content of messages, deciding the emphasis of staff orientation programs etc)

I argue that BECAUSE audiences are more fused than they used to be – the need for alignment between internal and external comms is not outdated – it is accentuated.   Employee communication is most certainly an internal communication issue because true transparency and authenticity starts on the inside.  Employees do have a new influential hold over organizational credibility but this should be considered as a potential asset that needs serious management to become advantageous.

Kevin Keohane, CommScrum London

I would point you all to my 2007* blog post, “The end of internal communication” for my original opinions on the matter, which are more or less in line with the scrum above. And I’m not sure I get the links to the energy industry / energy challenge specifically, though it’s one of the biggies.

A major factor here is not just articifical internal/external dimensions, it’s a massive audience/message/channel/belief system overlap, as Dan and Mike  point out.  It’s the same reason why, for example, Annual Reports are bloating and (bad ones) are no longer very useful in deciding whether to actually invest in a company.  They have become communication channels reflecting numerous agendas and a mix of internal and external requirements and have forgotten their audience (the investment community).

I’d also point out that while in principle I warm to Mike’s point about one approach being driven by benefit to the organisation, and one by a broader and larger, more socially-conscious agenda, but ultimately organisational benefit will trump other considerations in the vast majority of situations.  Great companies will get it – sustainability extends beyond CR and indeed employee behaviours and beliefs become part of the fabric of the future instead of inconvenient units of production.

Not to repeat Lindsay’s point, but to me, hers is the one that I really think cuts to the chase: connecting up the core factions to deliver value to the organisation and its people.  The problem is these factions have evolved very nearly to the level of “belief systems” about employee comms.   They all use similar models and tactics, but the corners from which they come out swinging have very different trainers in them…

The channelers – Very slowly disappearing, and not a minute too soon, dinosaur ex-journalists and newsletter publishers who reduce the role of internal communication to getting “the right information to the right people at the right time”.

The human capitalists – There is a camp that believes it is all about ‘the employee’ – broadly, the HR camp.  It’s about policies, processes, forms, measurement, measurement, measurement, competencies, reward systems and moving levers (The Gallup 12 etc.) to get the most out of people – if they are satisfied, engaged, etc., then they will be more productive.   Business performance links are there, but are tangental outcomes of pandering to the best possible employee experience.  The McLeod report is a great example.  It only mentions ‘brand’ in passing – and then in the context of HR branding internally.

The experientialists – Another camp is the customer experience camp or “brand engagement” – e.g. marketing.  They argue that if employees aren’t focussed on the customer or client, it doesn’t matter how engaged/satisfied they are since that becomes irrelevant (although you can argue cause and effect of course).  You’ll find a lot of brand agencies here.  And they don’t do HR, dahling… On the other hand, they tend to be far more influential and persuasive by nature than HR.

The influencers – A third camp is (and often the most seriously flawed) the PR and change camp, where internal/employee comms is all about defining “publics” and then influencing them using spin and external PR techniques.

The changelings – Communications is change.  Change comes from workstreams.

The executives – It’s all about leadership communication.

The managerials – It’s all about line managers.

The KM brigade – It’s about intranets and managing knowledge.

The storytellers – It’s all about big pictures and stories, since the dawn of time it always has been.

Look, I’m exaggerating and being a bit flippant, but you can actually find most of the factions at play in most organisations, largely focussed not on the ultimate effectiveness of the communication effort for the enterprise but instead on who holds the budget, the power, turf wars and the tactical needs within organisational silos.  A world where the politics of fear trumps alignment.  The point is – where is the centre of gravity?  I’d argue a broader, systemic approach with far clearer and business-focussed measures and outcomes (including people factors) is needed.  As Lindsay says, a completely different way of looking at communicating with employees that more solidly solders it to the way the organisation and its processes are designed and managed.

Finally, the “employee experience” really begins before they arrive, and continues after they leave, when you think about it – debunking “internal” altogther.

* which gives credence to the fact that, er, these things take some time to work through the zeitgeist…


30 thoughts on “GameChange: Why “Employee Communication” will stomp “Internal Communication”

  1. Okay. Goodness, so much here to respond to.

    Kevin’s list of types in employee communication is instructive for several reasons, not the least that it points out how different people have attempted to derive meaning from the umbrella terms Internal Communication and Employee Communication. The tactical nature of much of the organizational communications function feeds the need to find descriptors that resonate with the holders of purse strings. I’d argue that a macro strategy focused on adding value depends on segmented planning, which could unfortunately lead to siloed thinking.

    I don’t want to hijack the comments thread, but have a lot to respond to… Blog post coming on…


  2. Brigit Law says:

    Dear Mike and other Commscrums,

    I read with interest the discussion on your blog (via Twitter). It seems that at the bottom of this discussion lays the aspect of perception. Does one perceive to be ‘in’ or ‘out’. Organizational structures do not always reflect (in fact hardly ever do) the real social structures employees and other audiences have with eachother. While one employee may feel for 110% part of the company and ‘inside’ as opposed to its peers/clients/business contacts, another employee may feel more connected to its clients or peers than to its colleagues.

    Likewise, a client or supplier who is ‘outside’ of the organization organigramme may feel ‘in’ when it has very good relations with employees inside the organization.

    On the same line, these days executive management may want to create a situation where clients feel part of their brand and organization in order to build long and trustworthy relationships. It is no longer ‘us’ and ‘them’ but more ‘we together’.

    This trend challenges comms professionals to think differently and into new directions. More tailor made and less template actions. And above all, less one-way information flows. Since much of the information flow is no longer in control of management or comms departments, trying to identify, monitor and influence the road map the information flows (dialogues) are creating around your organization is the challenge that lays ahead for us communication professionals.

    I look forward to hearing your view on this.

  3. commscrum says:

    Thanks for the excellent comments.

    @CommAmmo (Sean) – I’ve replied over on yours as well, but wanted to specifically address the item you mention here: that the tactical, strategic, and client-budgetary tensions we face will impact the speed at which our industry’s transition occurs.

    Necessity is the mother of invention, to be cliched, and industries more exposed to the factors I’ve outlined are likely to be more enthusiastic and flexible than those who still see a future for “business as usual.”

    @Brigit–Kevin’s 2007 post (referenced in his section) addresses your concerns about “in” and “out” relationships with total directness.

    As for information flows–my view is that this will be really interesting. There will still be a lot of sentiment for holding information closely, delivering it slowly if “authoritatively” through cascades, and maximizing one-size-fits-all consistency. The extent to which employees make use of informal, external and social channels, and the extent to which the organization doesn’t collapse because of such “transgressions” may well hold the key to developing mechanisms that empower staff appropriately while supporting newer approaches to organizational cohesion.

    All the best,

    Mike Klein–The Intersection

  4. judy jones says:

    I think the distinction is employee as subject or object. That said,my impression is “employee communications” continues to connote the great unwashed masses – which many leaders or executives find, um, distasteful. And that is why the moniker will remain somewhat less popular.

    • commscrum says:

      I accept that “employee communications” has that kind of baggage. But discussing definitions is not an academic exercise–and we as practitioners need to wrest control of the vocabulary that ultimately defines, scopes and values our work.

      Great to hear from you!

      Mike Klein–The Intersection

    • kevinkeohane says:

      Sam Berrisford raised a really interesting point about audiences (eg employees for lack of a better term. People, maybe?)_self-selecting. I think he is bang on.

      Content must be “discoverable” – by audiences who define themselves in a dynamic manner. Information creating communication.

  5. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sean Williams, Kim Ulrik Schaumann, Mike Klein-, Mike Klein-, Jonas Mauritzson and others. Jonas Mauritzson said: Långt och intressant om i#internalkommunikation. Google Translate funkade var roligt. Läs på engelska. Nyttigare. […]

  6. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by kimschaumann: Successful employee communicators will need to focus both on productivity and credibility via @RachAllen @mklein818…

  7. @Mike, no doubt that we need to dictate the terms — in both the sense of how we describe what we do (which still throws people for a loop) as well as claiming the creation of meaning arising from that effort. This isn’t (as might appear) to say that the senders of communication own the meaning, just that having a strong reference point is crucial to establishing the range of meaning created. Dr. Carl Botan has been researching and writing about co-creation as a means of moving past the sender-receiver model — sender and receiver each have their own meanings, but create new meaning as a consequence of even passive collaboration… Perhaps that is a window into the future of workplace communication — the shared experience will create different meaning than the individual agendas did.

    • kevinkeohane says:

      Hi Sean,

      Yes the old sender-receiver model (one-way synchronous or worse asynchronous) and even two-way models (which self-respecting internal comms people seem to believe is the Holy Grail) are still flawed. Communications both shape and are shaped by the act of communicating – the shared experience you highlight.

  8. commscrum says:

    Sean and (particularly) Kevin:

    A couple of things:

    1) What Sean cites about the way communicating creates meaning not only reminds me about my university sociology discussions about “The Hawthorne Effect”–the effect found by researcher’s at Bell’s Hawthorn labs in the 1930s about how knowledge that an area is being studied affects the results of that study. Not surprising to see it show up here.

    2) Despite Kevin’s calling us out as “seriously flawed”, I’d argue here (and in a fuller post in the coming days) that two factors bode well for the much-maligned Influencer tribe: the impact of created meaning, and the emerging tangibility of the importance of internal and broader social networks.

    Influencers–capable of seeing big pictures, broad themes and key leaders above and below the upper-echelons, and having an understanding of the speed at which messages move, reverberate, get reinterpreted and have to be regenerated–will at the very least form the core of the enterprise commuinication picture, and may well dominate it.

    Mike Klein–The Intersection

  9. Sean Trainor says:

    Having a similar discussion on the role of associations/networks on the back of some criticism that professional associations cannot exist or represent internal communicators if they are a ‘broad church’ e.g. CIPR Inside, but are far more valuable if they become a center of excellence e.g. CiB (they said it, not me!)

    Horses for courses is what I say, IC pros all subscribe (or not) to different associations/networks for very different reasons and some subscribe to many. While thought-leading specialists/consultants may be drawn to “cult” movements like Commscrum, other practitioners prefer to rock up to church every week politely dressed in their Sunday best.

    Good luck with Commscrum, I’ll watch from the press box and provide the odd bit of commentary Bill McLaren style.

  10. kevinkeohane says:

    Looking forward to your post, Mike! I should probably keep my powder dry, but in the interest of assisting you pre-emptively …

    The problem with the “influencer” model is that influence tends to result in a transitory state. I can be relatively easily “influenced” about something over the short term, when my emotional radar may jam my rational radar, or when rational persuaion jams my emotional radar. I will relatively quickly be able to re-assess and re-align. Political campaigns are a great example. Young pols in particular are frighteningly adept as assessing massively complex personality and policy arenas to generate very effective political persuasion strategies. The problem with trying to apply this to the organisational / corporate arena is that while of course organisations are massively complex, and of course political, the ground rules are completely different.

    It’s why most MPs are unemployable in anything other than Parliament, and I’d argue why most US politicians inevitably might make money, but get embroiled in sickeningly corrupt situations where money is involved: the are playing by a different set of rules and often get caught out (or rich) – or both. They achieve the objective in the short term but break the rules. This can work in politics, less so in an increasingly transparent corporate environment.

    I think the same thing applies here. The influencer/persuasion technique gets quick wins easily, but struggles to make enduring, relevant change (which is why it appeals to PR people who have such a wonderful “live in the moment” approach to the world). It seldom actually engages on a deep enough level to convert into belief or behaviour with those who don’t, at some level, already agree with you.

  11. commscrum says:


    I’m going to address the imminent and triumphant revival of the influencer model in full detail on one of my other platforms (visit Monday)–but a few comments are required here:

    1) The whole communication industry is increasingly recognizing the centrality of employees to the viability of external messaging. That means PR/external comms folks will be piling into “our turf”–in no small part because of the relative dearth of available serious internal/employee comms folks. And they’ll be packing their mindset and their tools.

    2) As organizations increasingly shift from being “institutions” to becoming “adhocracies”, communication architecture will need to become leaner, more portable, and less dependent on deep, rich, and resilient cultural trends, at least until things re-freeze. Influencer models–because of their orientation around building influencer networks and the speed at which such networks can be deployed–offer much promise relative to the more contemplative approaches to organizational comms at this time.

    3) The endurance of political structures and organizations–while derided here–actually offers some lessons in this environment. Name 10 extant corporations in Britain or America that are older than the Democratic or Conservative Parties. And name 5 trade associations that operate on a lower staff-member ratio than these two parties. Political messaging can build enduring relationships too.

    Finally, as a political consultant who has worked successfully in organizational comms for over a decade–there are some big difference between the two games–kind of like the differences between American Football and Rugby–but where an understanding of those difference can give a practitioner unique power. I’ll save that for another post…

    Mike Klein–The Intersection

    • kevinkeohane says:

      It’s interesting indeed! One of my truisms is that practitioners bring their unique perspective to the mix, and this is true of the unique perspective you bring: You can play a fun game – How would X respond to Y question? It’s easy to fall into this trap. We joke that if you go to an ad agency with a problem, guess what the solution is? An ad. Take the same problem to an IT company. The solution? A technology approach. You can do the same thing against the typologies, above.

      You’ve lived in the stimulating world of party politics, and it has successfully shaped your approach to a career in organisational/people communications. (And no, I don’t think you are a one trick pony but I am making a point 🙂 )

      And I think these are fair points, but I just don’t agree that you can compare the political system and longevity of political parties/systems to commercial organisations so simplistically and explicitly. They share many attributes, intertwine and influence one another and as a result are hard to unwind from each other.

      So yes – we can learn lessons and take inspiration from the tales they tell, but I’m not going to bank on it as some sort of panacea. I was exposed to its allure and its powers at Georgetown – from people like Clarke Mollenhoff and Chris Matthews and George Will, among others. It’s heady stuff, but it’s also addictive and insular. You understand all too well that “inside the beltway” mentality.

      To me, it’s a perspective, and an interesting and valuable one. It’s one approach, sometimes valid and sometimes not; but I see it as one tool among many as opposed to a philosophical base from which to work.

      Yes, employees are becoming increasingly visible as external ambassadors. Aguably, this is reasonably well covered by internal PR and brand engagement models currently serving this market. Of course they will improve as they start to get social media etc.

      Adhocracies? Some will emerge, some won’t, depending on how sensitive their marketplace is and how robust/resistant to change it is. So, yes, sustainability lies at the core of this. But again I question your optimism in terms of velocity. Quick wins aren’t a new idea. While social media and PR/influencing approaches might appear “new” as employee comms approaches, they have been around a long time with mixed results. Sometimes its easy to think one’s own definition of an idea means it isn’t already at play in the world. I compete quite regularly with PR agencies for internal change and communication jobs these days, and have for a while.

      So ultimately, regarding the influencer model, I’d actually respond with one of your responses – prophetic, perhaps, but this won’t happen as fast as you would want to believe, and it seems slightly disingenuous to try to throw a lassoo around social media and claim ownership of its magics by one particular viewpoint. Has access to social media improved communication? Politics is like Twitter, maybe; 80% of the content produced by 5% of the particpants. Sounds like organisational communications business as usual to me.
      I was intrigued by your challenge, as well, about longevity. With roughly 1800 as a starting point (since to be fair Alex Hamilton sort of stacked the deck with the whole invention of a modern financial system with a Federal reserve, eh?). One of the issues is that many of these have ended up owned by other companies or operating under new names over time etc. but the list is not as sparse as you might think… I tried to stick to more or less household names.

      Carnegie (investment bank etc).
      John Wiley & Sons
      Oxford University Press
      John Deere
      Ingersoll Rand
      Guinness Brewery
      Remy Martin
      Martini & Rossi
      Budweiser (Budějovický Budvar, not the American shit)
      (and lots of brewers, a message there I think)
      Bank of America (Bank of Massachusetts, 1784)
      Princeton University and the 8 other colonial universities now forming the Ivy League)
      Georgetown University (hooray!)
      Baltic Exchange

      Being pedantic, gleefully.

      • Dan Gray says:

        (Adopting best Vic Reeves voice) You wouldn’t let it lie, would you?!

      • kevinkeohane says:

        What, ME obsessive?

        Another thought is that while the American Revolution laid the groundwork for an established political party system that has (arguably) only been seriously challenged once (the American Civil War), the Industrial Revolution that occured not long thereafter turned the commercial world on its head – meaning many economic “insitutions” disappeared. So trying to compare the two, at least explicitly, is spurious. Having said that, at its heart I agree with Mike that political parties seem to have longevity/sustainability. But we’ll probably argue about the causality…

  12. This thread is a like a conference unto itself!

    First, I want to acknowledge the terrific piece of analysis by Kevin Keohane, CommScrum London which is the first thorough taxonomy of actors in the internal communications.

    Second, I come from a background as a strategic planner for marketing and e-commerce–outwardly focused communications. More and more the social communications evolution is blending the borders between marketing, sales, customer service, product design, and corporate communications.

    I’ve written in more depth about the challenge last week in a blog post, “Intercomm: how internal + external communications integration will become the new frontier:”

    The Dachis Group is hosting two conferences about the new social enterprise and the challenges of building better communications internally, beginning in Austin, TX in the US on March 11 and in London, UK on March 18th.

    I’m trying to push this issue of internal communications to the forefront for these two conferences. If you’re interested, you can register for their “Collaboratory” community here:

    The agenda for the conference is being determined by community vote, so I’d ask you to have a look at a proposal I wrote about this idea and if you’re interested, please vote to advance the idea on the agenda:

    Thanks for your help, and thanks for fostering this discussion–RJ

  13. Great discussion, everyone! Sean Williams’ comment about workplace communication and its future really resonated with me. The workplace these days includes more than employees. We’ve got dayworkers, long-term contractors, outsourced individuals, consultants, vendors and many others working within the same organization. The term “employee” is not inclusive. However, workplace fits the situation and is more descriptive than “internal,” especially to those doing the work.

  14. Fascinating ramble. Having experienced a few moments of insight – and for that thank you – I now find myself quite lost.

    I’ve had the privilege of working as the senior internal [yes internal not employee] communication person on the Global teams of two organizations with over 40,000 employee around the world. Even a decade ago, it was very hard to define the boundaries of internal and external. When you walk the line in an aerospace production facility the Mitsubishi, Pratt Whitney and Bombardier employees can sometimes be found working side by side? Or what about clients who are working with your team for months or years to help develop a new product? Or as with a national telecom client of mine who’s off shore call centre people are the face/voice of the organization as far as many customers are concerned. Or what about employees working in non-core parts of the business once you’ve decided you’re going to sell – this is a real life example? Are they internal or external? Does it matter? Is it as simple as Heidi Klum says on Project Runway: “You’re either in or your out”. I don’t think so.

    I do think we need to get back to basics. What conversations and relationships are we as professional communicators trying to help our organizations have/build…? With who? And to achieve what? Then I think the “how” becomes clearer. And the labels maybe less important.

    As always thanks for the brain tease.

  15. commscrum says:

    Liz–as usual, you are right. I’ve seen in recent days some use of “workforce”, “workplace”, and “enterprise” as terms which more aptly describe the current nature of communication relationships in a business context…

    But I still think those who hold onto the old-school definition of “internal communication” should watch out for boots heading in their general direction.

    Mike Klein–The Intersection

  16. Sean Trainor says:

    Is it more effective to hiijack or alter the meaning of common terminology than it is to introduce something new with more relevant meaning? I dont know the answer to that, but I can think of an analogy.

    When I was first recruited 25 years ago, my letter of appointment came from the “Labour Department” some years later a promotion came from the “Personnel Department”. By the time they got round to giving me some formal training, the invitation came from “Human Relations Department” when I finally had enough I addressed my letter of resignation to “People and Organisational Development”

    I’m sure each of the titles created a new world for the people operating in them but to the people in the real world they were always known as the “tossers on the first floor of admin” that was mainly because their level of service never changed throughout, it just started to cost more.

    So let’s not headlong down that route! Instead let us embrace a title that matches what we do. For some that will be “internal communications”, for others it may be something more radical and meaningful. Sadly there are still a few tossers lurking around the many corridors of admin blocks but I wouldn’t recommend a change in their name, I’d recommend a change in their actions.

  17. Sean Trainor says:

    @Kevin. Thanks for cross referencing my previous analysis on Macleod under your human crapitalist category, see

    I’d like to add some categories if I may…

    “facilitators” – those that help enlighten other leaders, functions, managers on the most appropriate use of engaging communications and encourage a culture of “self service”

    “grit in the oysters” – those that continually challenge organisational leaders and provide the odd pearl of wisdom.

    “the consultants” – those that start every conversation off with “what does success look like?” followed by “what objectives are you trying to achieve?”

    “the professional networkers” – those that seem to have far too much time on their hands attending conferences that they cannot be practitioners.

    “the floor managers” – it’s all about face-to-face events daaarling.

    “the actuaries” – focussed on distribution lists, spreadsheets, databases, measurements, budgets.

    “the Millwalls” – nobody loves us and we don’t care.

    “the semantics” – enough said

  18. kevinkeohane says:

    You’re welcome. I noted the report’s emphasis of the HR angle, missing the brand but and you went so far as to say when and where. I love the new additions to the typology – here at CommScrum we are debating creating a page (ideally a wiki) dedicated to it…

  19. […] mindsets that we can perhaps track back to the evolving (and we need to revisit this at some stage) Typology of Communicators from an older […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: