The evolving role of the internal communicator in the AI era

I've spent most of my career helping organisations explain themselves. Making sense of change, turning strategy into something people can actually understand, helping leaders say things in a way that lands.

That part hasn't really changed. What has changed is everything around it.

Over the past year or so, I've found a lot of the more admin-heavy, time-consuming parts of the role have become far easier to manage. Things like version control, formatting, long email chains, and getting something into a "final" state still exist, but they take a fraction of the time they used to. That shift doesn't remove the work, it changes what's possible - creating more space to go deeper, improve quality, and deliver more, more quickly.

And that space gets filled quite quickly.

The work starts to shift. Less time spent producing, more time spent thinking. Thinking about whether something actually needs to be said. Whether it's clear. Whether it's going to land in the way we expect.

That feels like the more interesting part of the role now.

There's a wider shift happening as well. The job is starting to move away from delivery and a bit closer to influence. You see it reflected in how the role is being described:

I'm not sure I'd have described the role that way a few years ago, but it does feel closer to the reality now.

There's a lot of noise around AI replacing roles like internal communication. I don't think that's quite right. What does feel true is that the role is becoming more exposed if it stays focused on production alone. AI is very good at accelerating that part of the work.

At the same time, expectations haven't reduced. If anything, they've increased.

It's easier than ever to create and share information, which means there's more of it. And more information doesn't necessarily mean better understanding. In some cases, it just creates more confusion.

You can see that tension already:

So on the surface, things look fine. But that doesn't mean people feel clear on what's going on, or why it matters.

That's where the role starts to evolve.

It becomes less about putting information out, and more about making sure it actually makes sense. Making sure it's consistent. Making sure people can trust it.

Because trust is where things feel more fragile.

Those aren't small gaps. And they're not something you fix by sending more comms.

If anything, AI raises the stakes. It becomes very easy to say more, more often, without really improving understanding.

Which is why I don't see AI as replacing the role. It shifts where the value sits.

There's also a slightly different dynamic starting to emerge. Some people are leaning into AI quickly, experimenting, trying things out. Others are more hesitant, which is understandable.

That creates a bit of a gap. Not just in tools, but in how people think about communication. How quickly they move, how comfortable they are trying something new.

That line sticks with me, because it feels even more relevant now. It's not that organisations aren't communicating. It's that people don't always feel it reflects what's actually happening.

And that's where human judgement still matters.

AI can help you get to something quickly. It can give you a strong starting point. But it doesn't really understand context, or nuance, or how something will land with a specific group of people.

You still need someone to make that call.

From what I've seen, this isn't a future shift. It's already happening, just unevenly. Some teams are moving faster than others, some roles are changing more quickly, but the direction feels fairly clear.