On a recent episode of their new podcast, Shel Holtz, SCMP and Steve Crescenzo made a passionate case for why internal communicators should stop whining about “a seat at the table.” Their argument focused on telling internal comms folks to stop chasing proximity to power and instead, earn influence by being so useful that leaders come and find you.
I agreed with both of them more than I expected to once I listened to the episode, but I still believe we are having the wrong conversations about this.
The table is real, whether we’re at it or not.
Yes, of course, we’d all love leaders to come to us and ask for help, but for most, especially in the remote/hybrid world we live in, this isn’t the reality.
Decisions are being made every day about culture, change, strategy, and reputation by core decision-makers sitting around a table we often aren’t invited to. Meanwhile, we’re running around trying to do more with less and dealing with people who believe our main role is to write a newsletter, make slides look good and update the intranet.
There was a sprinkling of hope during the pandemic, when leaders realised the role of internal comms and how valuable we are in times of crisis and uncertainty, and many were invited to take a seat to contribute to the conversations.
However, over the past few years, some leaders have reverted to pre-pandemic behaviour, and I strongly believe this is because we are terrible at advocating for ourselves as a profession and at articulating our value effectively. We get sucked into people-pleasing, which means our boundaries slip, and then we end up taking accountability for things that add no value to the business at all. Leaders then start to question our contribution, and slowly we’re excluded again.
This article isn’t about arguing for a permanent, fixed seat or a ceremonial chair with our name on it. It’s about how we take up the space we deserve and advocate properly for the work we do, so it becomes a no-brainer that we are invited in before the decision is made, rather than after.
And Shel and Steve are right about one thing: we don’t earn that invitation by asking for it. We earn it by demonstrating our impact. By counselling leaders honestly, telling them uncomfortable truths when they need to be told, and showing up as business leaders with communication expertise, not order-takers waiting to be briefed.
The unique position we’re in.
If you work in internal communications specifically, you sit with one foot in the colleague camp and the other in leadership. You hear what colleagues are actually experiencing, and you can translate that up, honestly and clearly, without the filters that other functions apply. In my opinion, no other role does that quite the same way.
We’re not only a support function but also a strategic one. And in an AI world, where the transactional work gets automated, what remains distinctly human is judgement, nuance and the ability to read a room so we can advise properly before a crisis or reputation is at risk. And as communication professionals, that’s the core of what we do.
So why are we debating whether we deserve to be in the room?
This is what concerns me about the “burn the table” rhetoric, however well-intentioned. When our own industry publicly questions whether we should have influence over key decisions, we hand ammunition to the leaders who are perfectly comfortable keeping us out of the loop because they can’t see the value we bring.
There’s another risk we don’t talk about enough. When the goal is simply for individual leaders to come and find us, we end up fragmented. It’s impossible for us to see the full organisational picture. A seat at the table, or at least that open invitation, isn’t just about individual access or recognition. It’s about the communications function having a shared vantage point that scattered one-to-one relationships simply can’t give you. Without it, we will always be seen as a nice-to-have function that occasionally does some good.
I agree we don’t need to whine for a seat, but we do need to assert, clearly and confidently, that communications leadership belongs at that table, alongside other contributors shaping the future of the organisation.
So where do we start? Begin by tracking and naming your impact in the language leaders use. Stop saying “I sent a communication” and start saying “we reduced uncertainty during that restructure by getting people informed before the rumour mill kicked in.” Stop presenting outputs and start presenting outcomes. And when you’re pulled into work that adds no strategic value, push back. Respectfully, professionally, but push back. Every time you absorb low-value work without question, you reinforce the perception that your function exists to serve, not to lead.
Do you think we should stop talking about the seat at the table, or is the real problem that we haven’t figured out what to do when we get there?
If you want any support with communications, culture, change and confidence, message me and let’s have a chat.
