Tag: Gallagher

About the paper

This report examines the state of internal communications and employee experience, with a particular focus on what Gallagher calls the “Readiness Gap” between perceived organisational risk and the communications capabilities needed to handle it.

It is a mixed-methods report based on a global survey, roundtables, and focus groups conducted from September to November 2025, drawing on input from more than 1,300 communications and HR professionals across 40 countries; the geographic profile is weighted heavily toward North America and the UK/Europe.

The report is broadly descriptive and analytical rather than experimental, and its methodology is reasonably clear, though some findings are based on sub-samples rather than the full respondent base.

Length: 48 pages

More information / download:
https://www.ajg.com/employeeexperience/state-of-the-sector/

Core Insights

1. What is the central argument of the report, and what does Gallagher mean by the “Readiness Gap”?

The report’s central argument is that internal communications and HR functions are operating in an environment of constant change, but many organisations are still not structurally or strategically prepared to respond well. Gallagher defines this mismatch as the “Readiness Gap”: the gap between the risks organisations face and the capabilities, governance, strategy, and operating structures communicators need in order to manage those risks effectively.

The report argues that readiness is not about predicting the future perfectly. Instead, it is about building enough clarity, resilience, and strategic maturity to deal with volatility as a normal operating condition. In this framing, the issue is not simply that communicators face risk; it is that too many functions lack visibility into their mandate, lack codified strategy, or respond to complexity with high-volume, low-targeted communication that actually worsens overload, burnout, and mistrust.

A major strength of the report is that it treats readiness as multi-dimensional. Its “Readiness Index” combines six dimensions: risk, agility, AI readiness, human-centric communication, strategy, and impact. The global averages show a striking pattern: risk is relatively high at 57%, while AI readiness is only 39% and impact maturity just 36%. That suggests that many teams are highly exposed to pressure but comparatively weak in the systems that would help them respond strategically.

In practical terms, the report’s argument is that strategic maturity is the main dividing line. Mature teams do not necessarily face fewer problems; in fact, they may face more complexity. What distinguishes them is that they have stronger strategic foundations, clearer governance, more active socialisation of strategy, and better operational discipline. In other words, the report is ultimately arguing that readiness is a function-level capability problem, not just an environmental problem.

2. What are the most important risks and structural weaknesses identified in the research?

The report identifies a cluster of recurring risks that define the current operating reality for internal communicators. The most severe and widespread are manager effectiveness, information overload, audience burnout, budget constraints, decision exclusion, lack of strategic direction, and low trust in leadership. Among these, burnout and overload are especially prominent: 81% of respondents see employee burnout as a moderate or significant risk, and 83% say information overload is a growing problem. Manager capability is even more acute, with 87% saying that managers lacking skills and capacity is a significant or moderate risk.

What makes these risks especially important is that they are not isolated. The report repeatedly shows that they reinforce one another. High communication volume is associated with greater overload, greater burnout, and higher perceived trust risk. For example, in high-volume environments, the risk of burnout rises sharply, and communicating heavily about change, culture, or strategy can increase trust-related problems if the communication is not matched by relevance, authenticity, or audience fit.

The report also highlights major structural weaknesses beneath those risks. Many teams simply do not have the strategic assets or governance mechanisms needed to respond well. A majority lack formal change communications approaches, manager toolkits, audience personas, channel frameworks, and formal listening approaches. Only 15% have an active and socialised EVP, while 37% have no formal EVP at all. Fewer than one in five are satisfied with their ability to personalise communication through current channels.

Another weakness is measurement immaturity. Most functions remain stuck measuring output rather than outcomes or business impact. The report says 70% are still largely tracking activity metrics such as opens, clicks, and views, while only a minority measure sentiment, understanding, behavioural outcomes, or business impact. This matters because teams that cannot measure what they influence struggle to prove value, gain visibility, and escape being perceived as administrative rather than strategic.

So the report’s diagnosis is not just that communicators are under pressure. It is that too many teams are under pressure while also being under-instrumented: lacking strategy, lacking tools, lacking measurement, and lacking the authority or structure to act early rather than react late.

3. How does the report explain the difference between high-performing and low-performing communications functions?

The report’s most important explanatory idea is that strategic maturity separates the stronger functions from the weaker ones. Gallagher groups respondents into four “Readiness” segments: Vulnerable, Untapped, Resilient, and Stable. The low-performing ends of the spectrum are Vulnerable and Untapped; the higher-performing ends are Resilient and Stable. What distinguishes them is not simply team size or sector, but the interaction of maturity, visibility, governance, and strategic activation.

Vulnerable teams operate in high-risk environments with low maturity. They are more reactive, less likely to track their mandate, more likely to be driven by leadership requests than employee insight, and more likely to experience burnout and low leadership trust. Untapped teams are slightly different: they report lower perceived risk, but they also score low on the capabilities that would actually reduce risk. The report suggests that they may be living with a false sense of security.

By contrast, Resilient teams operate under pressure but maintain control. Stable teams combine lower risk with strong maturity and governance. These higher-performing groups are much more likely to have active, socialised strategies, better measurement practices, stronger visibility into what they are accountable for, and a more consultancy-like operating model. Stable teams, for instance, are described as most likely to operate as a strategic consultancy, while Resilient teams prove that high performance is possible even in high-pressure settings if discipline and strategic structure are in place.

One of the report’s strongest findings is the emphasis on socialisation of strategy, not just the existence of strategy. Only 27% say their strategic documents are well understood by stakeholders, yet those with active, socialised strategies are much more likely to report stronger engagement, better influence, better measurement, and lower perceived risk. The report even suggests that teams with a living strategy can double their odds of success and substantially reduce missed KPIs.

This means the report is not really celebrating strategy as a document. It is celebrating strategy as an active operating system. High-performing teams write things down, align stakeholders, use their frameworks to guide decisions, and connect communications work to outcomes. Low-performing teams often have fragments of strategy, but not enough codification or shared understanding to turn intent into consistent action.

4. What does the research reveal about change, AI, and the future capability demands on communications teams?

The report presents change communication as the new baseline capability for the profession. It explicitly argues that change is no longer a specialist area; it is now central to the job. Change management communication ranks as the most critical skill for the coming 12 months, yet 61% of teams do not have a formal change communications approach. This is one of the clearest examples of the report’s broader argument: the capability needed most urgently is often the one least systematically developed.

The report also shows that workforce readiness is constrained by team size, structure, and budgets. Across organisations of all sizes, 69% have fewer than six people in a comms role, and one in three have no dedicated communications budget. The research suggests a particular strain as organisations move past 500 employees, when complexity rises faster than capability. Gallagher describes a mid-market “capacity crash”, where communicators per 1,000 employees drop sharply and perceived risk rises.

On AI, the report takes a relatively sober line. It does not present AI as a transformative equaliser by default. Instead, it argues that AI amplifies pre-existing maturity. Most respondents are using AI for drafting and summarising, but far fewer are using it for higher-value applications such as measuring outcomes, automating workflows, generating insight, or supporting strategic decisions. Three-quarters of functions remain in early-stage experimentation or ad hoc use, and only 36% of respondents feel they have the skills and literacy needed to use AI effectively.

The strongest AI finding is about governance. Teams with high governance, clear policies, training, and support are far more likely to move from experimentation into enabled or strategic use. The report says those with stronger governance are 10 times more likely to reach enabled maturity, and that higher-maturity teams use AI to amplify thinking and measurement, whereas lower-maturity teams mainly use it to draft faster. That is a significant claim because it reframes AI readiness as a management and governance issue, not just a tooling issue.

So in future-capability terms, the report points to a new skills mix: change capability, leadership coaching, stakeholder management, AI literacy, and data literacy. It is effectively arguing that the future communicator is not just a channel manager or content producer, but a strategic advisor with stronger analytical, coaching, and transformation skills.

5. What are the report’s main implications for communication leaders, and what should they take away from it?

The report’s biggest implication is that communication leaders should stop thinking of function maturity as a nice enhancement and start treating it as a risk-management necessity. In Gallagher’s framing, readiness is directly linked to organisational performance, employee trust, and the ability to absorb change. That means communication leaders need to invest less in simply pushing more content and more in building the strategic and operational conditions that make communication effective.

A second implication is that audience-first communication is no longer optional. The report repeatedly shows that segmentation, human tone, relevant formats, and better listening reduce risk and improve effectiveness. Teams that communicate in more human-centric ways are better able to cut through noise, protect trust, and reduce burnout and overload. Yet most organisations still fall short on segmentation, personalisation, and audience profiling. The implication is clear: relevance is becoming a core performance discipline, not a stylistic bonus.

A third implication concerns proof of value. The report strongly suggests that communicators will struggle to gain strategic standing if they remain trapped in activity metrics. If the function wants to close the gap between aspiring to be a strategic consultancy and actually being seen as one, it has to improve measurement maturity and link communication efforts to business outcomes, risk reduction, behaviour change, and employee sentiment. Otherwise, the “admin” label persists.

Finally, the report implies that leaders should focus on four priorities for 2026: clarity and direction, workforce readiness, operational enablement, and human-centric communication. These are not presented as separate workstreams but as mutually reinforcing. Clarity without enablement will stall. AI without governance will remain shallow. Listening without strategy will stay anecdotal. Human-centric intent without time, permission, or systems will remain uneven.

Taken together, the report is less a celebration of best practice than a warning against drift. Its core message is that many communication functions are trying to operate in a strategic age with reactive-era structures. The teams that do better are not necessarily louder or larger; they are more codified, more socialised, more disciplined, and more human in how they communicate.

About the paper

The report analyses the state of internal communication and employee experience in 2023/24, with a strong focus on strategic influence, measurement, technology, channels, manager communication and communicator wellbeing.

It is based on Gallagher’s original global survey of more than 2,300 respondents conducted between October and November 2023 across 56 countries, supplemented by multivariate statistical analysis and calculated scoring models; the report’s scope is global, with half of respondents in North America and 41% in the UK and Europe.

Length: 41 pages

More information / download:
https://www.ajg.com/employeeexperience/state-of-the-sector/

Core Insights

1. What is the report’s central argument about the changing role of internal communicators?

The report’s core argument is that internal communicators are being pushed to become more strategic, more business-aware and more central to employee experience, but many organizations are still not investing in them, involving them early enough, or giving them the conditions to succeed. The report frames 2023/24 as a period in which communicators are expected to connect communication with business outcomes, culture, change, leadership visibility and employee understanding, while still dealing with familiar operational barriers such as low capacity, weak technology and limited budget.

That tension runs throughout the report. On one hand, the purpose of internal communication is increasingly tied to strategic alignment as well as culture and belonging. On the other hand, communicators still report structural obstacles that stop them from acting strategically, including lack of time or capacity, disengaged employees, insufficient budget and channels that are not fit for purpose.

So the report is not simply saying that internal communication has become more important. It is saying that the function is in the middle of a role redefinition: expected to drive business outcomes and employee experience, but still too often treated as a delivery function rather than a strategic one.

2. What evidence does the report present that a more strategic communication function performs better?

The strongest finding is that when communicators operate strategically rather than in merely advisory or supporting roles, employee understanding improves. The report explicitly states that topics handled strategically were more likely to be understood by employees at a good or excellent level. It quantifies this with an average employee-understanding rating of 10.8 for strategic communicators, compared with 10.4 for advisory and 9.7 for supporting roles, with statistical significance reported at P = .012.

The report also links strategic working to better use of measurement. Strategic communicators are described as more likely to use measurement data as evidence of value or ROI, and 47% of strategic communicators are using measurement to influence leadership. The text argues that strategic communicators align communication with broader business goals, plan ahead, set objectives, reflect on progress and combine quantitative data with qualitative insight.

There is also an important human dimension. The report finds that strategic communicators report higher wellbeing than advisory or supporting peers, suggesting that strategic influence is associated not just with better outcomes for organizations, but also with a stronger sense of purpose, fulfilment and control for practitioners themselves.

Taken together, the report’s evidence suggests that strategy is not a status label. It is a practical advantage: better understanding among employees, stronger leadership influence, more effective measurement and better wellbeing for communicators.

3. What does the report reveal about the profession’s main operational problems in 2024?

The report shows a profession under pressure from overload, constrained resources and weak organizational systems. The top reported barriers to success for 2024 are lack of time and capacity in the team at 35%, disengaged employees at 32%, lack of budget at 25% and internal technology or channels not fit for purpose at 24%. Volume of communication also rose in importance as a barrier, moving up to sixth place.

This is reinforced by the findings on change communication. Although nine in ten communicators expect organizational change in 2024, only 25% are part of the team making decisions around change. Just over half, 51%, are consulted only after decisions have already been made and are then asked to build the communication strategy afterwards. The report presents this as a major strategic weakness: communicators are often expected to drive engagement with transformation without being involved early enough to shape it.

The report also shows that topic volume and employee attention are becoming harder to manage. Strategy, vision and purpose remained the most-communicated topic, but change activity and business performance entered the top ranks as well, indicating a more business-heavy agenda. Yet employee understanding of change activity was only 36%, which points to a gap between what organizations are communicating and what employees actually grasp.

Another operational problem is that many communicators are still not set up with sufficiently coherent channel strategies. One in three respondents are dissatisfied with their channel mix, and one in three added a channel during the year, even though communication volume is already seen as a challenge. The report argues that channel frameworks, master plans, communication strategies and employee preference data all improve channel effectiveness and satisfaction.

So the report portrays the profession’s main practical problem as a mismatch between expectations and enabling conditions: organizations expect communication to deliver clarity, engagement and change, but often under-resource the function and involve it too late.

4. How does the report assess measurement, listening and the use of technology, including AI?

The report presents measurement as an improving but still constrained area. Communicators are collecting more data than in the previous year across reach, understanding, behaviour change and communication satisfaction. The share who said they “always” measure reach rose to 77%, understanding to 69%, behaviour change to 63% and communication satisfaction to 60%. The report sees this as encouraging because robust measurement appears to go hand in hand with a strategic approach.

Measurement is also being used more actively. Respondents increasingly use measurement to provide evidence of ROI, refine channels, tailor content, adjust messaging and request investment. At the same time, 84% say they want to measure more often or more comprehensively, but the main constraints are lack of time and resources, lack of metrics, and lack of tools for collation and analysis.

On listening, the report suggests that communicators are not abandoning qualitative insight in favour of metrics. Engagement surveys remain the most-used listening channel at 75%, but live Q&A, post-event feedback, listening sessions and focus groups are all highlighted as effective. Independent audits were the least-used method, but rated among the most effective. The report therefore advocates a balanced listening model combining formal measurement with richer qualitative channels.

On AI, the report presents a profession that is curious but still unevenly prepared. Sixty per cent of respondents say they are using AI in some way, from experimentation to developing their own solutions. One in three are experimenting with AI, and one in five are using it to create communications. At the same time, only 29% say their organizations have guidance on when, where or how to use AI, and only around one in five say their organization provides AI training or resources. Half say there is nobody in charge of AI, while 13% do not even know whether their company is using generative AI.

Attitudinally, the report shows guarded optimism. Forty-one per cent are “enthused” and 9% “championing”, but there remains a sizeable group marked by resignation, denial or fear. The report’s interpretation is that experimentation reduces fear and helps communicators see AI as a tool for efficiency rather than replacement, especially for high-effort, low-reward tasks.

5. What conclusions does the report draw about people managers, communicator wellbeing and the future of the profession?

The report concludes that people managers still matter, especially in hybrid and deskless environments, but that organizations cannot simply rely on them without support and accountability. Eighty-four per cent of respondents say they rely on managers for communication to some degree, yet three in five say manager communication is below expectations. Reliance on managers rises as the proportion of deskless employees rises, but manager performance ratings worsen in those contexts.

The report’s answer is not to remove managers from the communication chain, but to support them better. Managers perform better when they are evaluated on communication and when internal communication teams provide them with resources. Managers evaluated on communication are twice as likely to meet or exceed expectations, and on-demand learning, written resources, managers-only forums, training and coaching are the most common support tools.

On wellbeing, the report is notably sober. It says the post-pandemic glow around internal communication has faded. While 32% still describe the work as a passion and vocation, 44% say they love communications but could see themselves happy elsewhere. Over the past year, 38% say their wellbeing deteriorated, compared with 22% who say it improved. The report links this to weak business investment, heavy expectations and declining recognition.

The resourcing data supports that concern. For 2024, 47% expect their budget to remain the same and 17% expect it to be cut, while average team sizes are described as stagnating or shrinking, especially in enterprise organizations. The report warns that businesses risk losing talented communicators if they continue to undervalue the function.

Its final conclusion is therefore double-edged. Internal communication has a stronger business case than ever, and the report offers a clear action list around strategy, measurement, change, channels, manager support, AI and listening. But unless organizations back those expectations with real involvement, structure and investment, the profession’s capacity and morale will continue to erode.

About the paper

The report analyses the state of internal communication and employee experience in 2022/23 using original survey research conducted from October to November 2022.

It draws on responses from more than 2,000 organisations across 53 countries, making it a global survey-based benchmark study; the report clearly states the respondent mix and geography, though some methodological details beyond the survey design are not specified in detail.

Length: 59 pages

More information / download:
https://www.ajg.com/employeeexperience/state-of-the-sector/

Core Insights

1. How does the report define the changing purpose of internal communication in 2022/23?

The report’s core argument is that internal communication is no longer defined primarily as a vehicle for top-down strategic alignment. That still matters, but it now competes with a broader, more human-centred purpose: shaping culture and belonging. On page 10, 74% say the purpose of internal communication is to support culture and belonging, while 67% point to strategic alignment. That is a significant shift in emphasis, especially for smaller organisations, where culture and belonging outrank strategy more clearly.

This matters because it shows the profession moving from a transmission model to a relational model. Internal communication is presented less as a tool for informing employees and more as a mechanism for helping people feel valued, included and connected to the organisation. The report explicitly links this shift to diversity, equity and inclusion, values and behaviours, and physical and emotional wellbeing. Those themes sit at the centre of the report’s framing of what communication is now for.

The topic data reinforces that interpretation. On page 11, the most communicated topic is still strategy, vision and purpose at 45%, but DEI follows at 29%, and both values, behaviours and culture and wellbeing and mental health stand at 27%. So the report is not saying strategy has disappeared. It is saying strategy now sits alongside a stronger expectation that communication should help create meaning, belonging and organisational cohesion.

The executive summary also frames this as a recalibration. The report argues that after years of disruption, organisations are moving beyond short-term channel adaptation and asking bigger questions about the “why” and “what” of internal communication, not only the “how”. That is one of the report’s clearest underlying messages.

2. What does the study reveal about the relationship between internal communication, culture, belonging and employee experience?

The report presents culture and employee experience as the two strongest growth areas in the remit of internal communication. It argues that communicators are increasingly expected to influence how work feels, not just how information flows. That includes belonging, inclusion, trust, wellbeing, EVP understanding and the quality of everyday employee interactions.

On culture and belonging, the report finds that DEI is widely communicated but not always strategically embedded. On page 17, only a little over 4 in 10 respondents say they have a clearly defined DEI strategy, even though DEI is the second most communicated topic. Tactics such as awareness days, employee resource groups and training are common, especially in larger organisations, but the report suggests many organisations are still using disconnected activities rather than integrated, behaviour-shaping communication.

The report is especially sceptical about authenticity. On page 18, only 45% say they have a say in what gets communicated and how, 35% feel able to inject more personality into communications, and just 26% say their organisation is open to creativity and humour. This is one of the report’s strongest interpretive threads: employees increasingly want candour, humanity and personality, but many organisations still default to sanitised corporate language. The report’s own commentary on page 21 is blunt: people want authenticity, yet internal communication still tends to be led by “corporate speak”.

On employee experience, the report suggests that organisations have recognised the issue more than they have solved it. On pages 22–25, it shows that 57% have taken steps to revisit their EVP, but only 26% have formalised it in writing. Just 53% rate employee understanding of pay, rewards and benefits as excellent or good, and only 34% say the same for career development opportunities. At leadership level, 72% believe employee experience is on the executive radar, yet only around a third report a clear formal mandate from the top. In other words, employee experience is widely acknowledged but still insufficiently structured.

The report also shows that some parts of employee experience are much more developed than others. Purpose and strategy, rewards, learning and development, and wellbeing are comparatively more likely to have clear strategies, while digital experience, environmental and social impact, and workplace experience lag behind. That suggests a patchy and uneven employee experience agenda rather than a coherent one.

3. Which practical weaknesses are most limiting organisations’ internal communication efforts?

The report identifies a cluster of operational weaknesses that keep appearing across the data: lack of time and capacity, disengagement, budget constraints, weak measurement, poor people manager enablement, and underdeveloped change communication.

The most immediate constraint is resourcing. On page 14, lack of time and capacity is the top challenge for 2023 at 34%, ahead of disengaged employees at 30% and lack of budget at 24%. That is important because it changes the story from one of ambition to one of delivery pressure. The report repeatedly suggests that internal communication teams are being asked to cover more ground, especially across culture, wellbeing, experience and change, without enough additional support.

People managers are another weak point. On page 19, 34% still view people managers mainly as a cascade channel. While 56% say managers are expected to reinforce and adapt corporate messages for their teams, preparedness is middling rather than strong: 58% say managers are well equipped to support wellbeing, 56% to connect employees to purpose, and 53% to create an inclusive workplace. The report’s implication is that managers are central to culture and experience, but most organisations are not enabling them robustly enough.

Change communication is a particularly notable weak spot. On pages 33 and 34, almost 90% of organisations report planned change programmes for 2023, yet performance on key change communication practices is poor. Only two ingredients stand out as reasonably well handled: visual identity and long-term vision. Clear change narratives, communication calendars, audience understanding, behaviour insight and advocate networks all score weakly. The executive summary states that 58% fail to articulate a clear change narrative or design a consistent calendar of activities. That is a serious gap given how much change organisations are navigating.

Measurement is another area where the profession looks stuck between aspiration and maturity. On pages 47 and 48, reach and employee understanding are measured more often than business outcomes or overall satisfaction, and the top reason for measuring is to show ROI to leaders rather than to improve communication for employees. The main barriers are lack of time and resource, lack of clear objectives, and technology limitations. The report clearly sees this as a problem: measurement exists, but it is not yet consistently outcome-focused or improvement-led.

4. What does the report say about channels, technology and the digital employee experience?

The report argues that channels and technology remain a major frustration, but not simply because there are too many tools. Its position is more nuanced: many organisations still lack a coherent channel strategy, sufficient investment and the data sophistication needed to make channels work well together.

Overall channel satisfaction is mediocre rather than strong. On page 37, 63% are satisfied or very satisfied with their current channel mix, which still leaves more than a third dissatisfied. At the same time, 46% say their organisation is not investing enough in communication technology. The report treats this as evidence of a widening gap between what digital tools could enable and what employees actually experience.

The value ratings on page 38 show where the main problems lie. Channels perform best at basic reach, with 73% saying they help reach people wherever they are based. But only 60% say they connect people on a human level, 59% say they create a consistent experience, 55% say they help gather employee feedback, 52% say they drive collaboration, and just 45% say they let employees share their own content. So the digital environment is relatively better at distributing information than at fostering participation, dialogue or belonging.

The report also points to structural immaturity behind that dissatisfaction. Only 31% have a channel framework, only 33% have channel-specific editorial calendars, and segmentation and personalisation remain limited. On pages 39 and 40, segmentation tends to focus on basic criteria such as management responsibility, job role and location, while more sophisticated targeting based on interests, attitudes or response to change remains weak. Personalisation is even less mature. This supports one of the report’s broader conclusions: the profession talks about digital sophistication, but the operational foundations are often still basic.

Interestingly, the report does not say all channel types are failing equally. It shows strong use and effectiveness for broadcast staples such as email and town halls, and high effectiveness ratings for collaboration channels such as team meetings and enterprise chat tools. Intranets remain common but attract criticism for analytics, integration and social functionality, while employee apps are seen as effective but not yet dominant. AI, meanwhile, appears more as an emerging aspiration than an established practice, with only 9% reporting current use.

So the report’s position is not anti-technology. It is that technology alone has not solved the communication problem. Without clearer governance, sharper purpose, better content and stronger audience insight, more tools will not automatically create a better employee experience.

5. What are the report’s main strategic implications for communication leaders in 2023 and beyond?

The report’s strategic message is that internal communication leaders need to think bigger than channels and bolder than messaging. They are being asked to shape culture, strengthen belonging, improve employee experience, support change, and demonstrate value in measurable terms. That requires a more strategic, integrated and evidence-led function.

First, communication leaders need to clarify the function’s purpose. The conclusion on page 55 begins with the need to have a defined purpose and strategy, aligned to what the business needs and what value communication provides. That recommendation follows directly from the report’s evidence that many teams still operate with campaign plans and tactics, but without an overarching long-term strategy.

Second, they need to build a stronger narrative capability. The report shows that only 30% have a written strategic narrative, and fewer than half believe employees understand how they contribute to strategy. That makes narrative not a stylistic extra, but a strategic necessity. Communicators are being urged to articulate purpose, change and meaning more clearly and consistently.

Third, the report strongly implies that authenticity is becoming a competitive communication capability. Employees want open, human and credible communication, yet many organisations still resist humour, creativity and personality. The report’s commentary repeatedly frames authenticity as necessary to trust, relevance and memory. For leaders, that means not just polishing leadership messages, but helping leaders communicate more like real people.

Fourth, communication leaders need to shift from output metrics to impact thinking. The report explicitly says the focus should move from outputs to outcomes. If culture, belonging and employee experience are the new frontier, then success cannot be assessed only through open rates or attendance. It has to include understanding, behaviour, sentiment and business-relevant effects.

Finally, the report suggests that internal communication is at a turning point. Its remit has expanded, its influence appears higher than in the past, but its operating model has not fully caught up. Teams are under pressure, technology is underperforming, and measurement remains imperfect. The opportunity is clear: communicators who can connect purpose, experience, change and evidence will be better placed to become trusted advisers rather than content distributors. That is the report’s underlying vision of what world-class internal communication now looks like.

About the paper

The report presents Gallagher’s 2021/22 global survey of the internal communication and employee engagement landscape, based on a survey run from October to November 2021.

It is original survey research with comparative analysis across respondent segments; more than 1,300 organisations took part, spanning more than 33 industries, with a global footprint led by North America (46%) and Europe (35%).

The report clearly states the respondent volume and regional mix, but does not clearly specify the detailed sampling approach beyond survey participation.

Length: 56 pages

More information / download:
https://www.ajg.com/employeeexperience/state-of-the-sector/

Core Insights

1. What does the report say are the biggest strategic priorities for internal communication in 2022?

The report’s clearest message is that the profession’s core mission has remained stable, but the agenda around it has shifted. The number-one priority is still engaging employees around purpose, strategy and values, selected by 53% of respondents. That matters because it shows internal communication still sees its central role as creating clarity, alignment and meaning across the organisation.

What changed around that core is more revealing. Adapting channel strategy to hybrid working came in second at 39%, and enhancing people manager communication entered the top three for the first time at 31%. Building the internal communication function followed at 29%, while improving impact measurement and evaluation, enhancing leadership visibility, and developing communication strategy and tone of voice each stood at 26%.

This signals a profession moving from pure message distribution towards workforce experience, channel governance and managerial enablement. The report explicitly notes that leadership visibility dropped from its previously dominant position, suggesting that after the pandemic’s peak phase, the problem is less about simply seeing leaders and more about helping employees navigate hybrid structures, organisational change and overloaded communication environments.

So the strategic picture is not that internal communication has abandoned its traditional purpose. Rather, it has had to retool around new organisational realities: hybrid work, employee uncertainty, changing expectations of managers, and the need to prove impact more credibly.

2. What are the report’s main findings about the biggest challenges facing internal communication teams?

The most striking finding is that employee disengagement is now the leading challenge, cited by 37% of respondents. The report treats this as a major shift, noting that disengagement had risen from third place the year before. That suggests organisations were not simply managing communications complexity; they were confronting a deteriorating emotional and motivational climate among employees.

The second-biggest challenge is lack of capacity or human resource in the internal communication team, named by 32%. That is followed by lack of analytics and measurement and poor people manager communication skills, both at 27%. Internal technology not fit for purpose and volume of communication too high each register 22%.

Taken together, these findings point to a structural tension. Internal communication teams are being asked to take on broader responsibilities, yet many remain under-resourced, insufficiently supported by measurement capability, and dependent on people managers who are expected to communicate more without being developed enough to do so well. The report also points to “noisy organisations”, poor channel governance and confusion caused by expanding digital ecosystems, especially around Office 365 tools and social platforms.

What is especially important is that the report does not frame these challenges as purely technical. It links them to deeper organisational issues: uncertainty from the top, unclear strategic direction, weak feedback loops, and the difficulty of preserving belonging, wellbeing and attention in hybrid settings. In other words, the challenge is not just sending better messages. It is sustaining employee connection and meaning in a fragmented workplace.

3. How does the report assess organisations’ ability to create understanding around purpose, strategy and employee contribution?

This is one of the most revealing sections of the report. Although purpose and strategy remain the profession’s top priority, employee understanding appears uneven and weakens the closer one gets to practical relevance. Respondents say employees’ understanding is good or excellent for purpose and vision in 63% of organisations, but only 47% for business strategy, and just 41% for how employees themselves contribute to purpose and strategy.

That drop-off is crucial. It suggests many organisations are reasonably good at expressing an overarching idea of who they are and what they stand for, but much less effective at translating that into operational understanding and individual line of sight. The report explicitly identifies this as a core internal communication challenge.

There are also clear process weaknesses behind this. While 88% say their organisation values employee feedback, only 64% believe the organisation learns from and acts on it, and just 47% think there is a robust process for capturing employee insights and feedback. Qualitative listening methods such as focus groups and listening sessions are used by only 39%, while feedback from people managers is used by 49%, and social channels by just 25%, despite wider adoption of those channels.

The report’s interpretation is that many organisations talk about listening more than they practise it. That matters because understanding is not created by broadcasting a purpose statement. It is built when organisations actively connect narrative, behaviour, employee voice and managerial reinforcement. The report also shows that organisations with stronger talent attraction and retention are more positive about listening, more likely to act on feedback, and report much stronger employee understanding of strategy and personal contribution.

4. What does the report argue about employee experience, hybrid working and the role of people managers?

A major argument of the report is that internal communication can no longer be treated narrowly as message management. It increasingly sits inside the broader employee experience. The report says 82% agree that internal communication is seen as a key driver of employee experience, and 73% say employee experience is discussed at C-suite level. But there is a gap between executive discussion and organisational execution: only 31% report a clear top-level mandate, 19% say there is a cross-department working group in place, and 44% describe the approach as siloed.

On hybrid working, the report shows that organisations know change is needed. Adapting channel strategy to hybrid working is a major priority, and 19% say they have already conducted an in-depth review of channels and engagement strategy, while 34% are still in the process. Yet the report also notes that this review has not translated into radical channel change. Instead, many organisations seem to be adjusting how they use existing channels rather than replacing them.

The report’s channel findings underline the problem. While 80% say their current channels can reach employees wherever they are based, lower shares believe channels support opinion-sharing, collaboration or innovation. Only 25% say employees can choose how they receive communications to any real degree, and 47% say they have no plans to implement that.

People managers are central to this whole picture. Expectations of leaders and people managers as communicators have increased for 81% of respondents, yet support has not kept pace. Thirty-five per cent say people managers are the primary communication channel for many employees, and 54% say they are important in reinforcing messages. But only 63% say people managers are treated as a proper communication channel, 46% say it is easy for managers to share team feedback upward, and just 34% say people managers have access to communication training.

The report’s implication is sharp: organisations are leaning more heavily on managers in the hybrid era while underinvesting in their communication capability. That creates a bottleneck in the employee experience and weakens both listening and strategic alignment.

5. What does the report suggest distinguishes stronger organisations and ‘world-class’ communicators from the rest?

The report repeatedly compares higher-performing organisations and “world-class communicators” with the broader sample. Its core conclusion is that stronger organisations are more proactive, more strategic, and more disciplined in planning, listening, change and measurement.

For organisations that outperform peers on talent attraction and retention, several patterns stand out. They are more likely to value and act on employee feedback, more likely to discuss employee experience at C-suite level, more likely to have formal employee experience structures, and more likely to review and adapt their channel strategies in response to hybrid work. They also report stronger employee understanding of purpose, business strategy and individual contribution.

For “world-class communicators”, the report defines this group as the 11% who said their influence had increased and who strongly agreed they are viewed as trusted advisers. Compared with others, they are more likely to have formal planning documents such as annual master plans, longer-term internal communication strategies, channel frameworks and editorial calendars. They rate their organisations more positively on change communication, especially long-term vision, compelling change story, and leader consistency. They also measure more systematically, including understanding, satisfaction and behaviour change, and make better use of data to refine messaging and channels.

This points to the report’s underlying perspective: influence is not earned merely by producing more content or being visible in leadership meetings. It is earned by building strategic clarity, disciplined planning, strong change communication, active listening and credible evidence of impact. In that sense, the report is making a professional argument as much as an empirical one. It is saying the future of internal communication belongs to teams that can connect narrative, employee experience, managerial capability and measurement into a coherent operating model.

The report’s overall conclusion is that internal communication has gained status, but not yet full maturity. Its remit is expanding faster than many organisations’ structures, skills and resources. Those that turn listening, planning, employee experience and measurement into real operating disciplines appear better placed to retain talent, navigate hybrid work and strengthen organisational performance.