Why comms must be recognised as a strategic function in the public sector

Many organisations still hold a legacy view of communications as an extension of HR or a soft, operational add-on. In reality, it is a leadership discipline that can inform and shape decision-making at the highest level.

By James Sharp

For too long, communications in the public sector has been boxed in, frequently grouped under people and workforce functions. This may seem harmless on paper, but in practice it misrepresents the true role of professional communicators, risks diluting our influence, and undermines the strategic potential of the discipline.

As someone working in NHS communications, I see daily how our profession is treated as both essential and misunderstood. On one hand, colleagues recognise our ability to “get messages out” quickly and clearly. On the other, communications is too often seen as a supporting tool rather than a driver of strategy. This tension sits at the heart of how communications is positioned, and why it’s time we challenge the narrative.

The legacy problem: communications as “staff messaging”

Many organisations still hold a legacy view of communications as an extension of HR – primarily responsible for staff newsletters, intranet updates, and occasional campaigns to boost morale. This narrow interpretation may explain why communications often gets badged under people and workforce functions.

The trouble with this arrangement is that it anchors communications to only one part of its scope: internal messaging. While internal comms is important, it is just one aspect of a discipline that spans reputation management, external engagement, behaviour change, crisis response, and digital storytelling. To reduce communications to “keeping staff informed” is to miss the bigger picture entirely.

The reality: communications as strategy in action

Communications is not a soft, operational add-on. It is a leadership discipline. At its best, it informs and shapes decision-making at the highest level.

Consider just a few areas where communications makes a demonstrable impact in the public sector:

Behaviour change – persuading parents to vaccinate children, encouraging early cancer screening, or shifting public attitudes to urgent care.
Reputation management – maintaining trust during system pressures, industrial action, or service reconfiguration.
Crisis response – delivering rapid, clear, and consistent messaging during a pandemic or major incident.
Digital engagement – using social media, websites, and targeted campaigns to reach communities in ways traditional structures often cannot.
Stakeholder management – navigating the interests of government, media, partners, and the public to keep services aligned and understood.

Each of these areas directly influences whether public services succeed or fail. That is not ‘nice to have’; it is strategic by every definition.

Context across the public sector

In my own world of NHS communications, it is common for comms to be positioned under people and workforce, with a strong focus on staff engagement and organisational culture. That is understandable, given the size of the NHS workforce and the importance of internal communications in keeping people connected.

But in other parts of the public sector, the picture looks different. Local government often badges communications under strategy or corporate services, reflecting the political environment and the direct accountability councils have to their communities. In central government, communications is explicitly recognised as a strategic function through the Government Communication Service, designed to support policy delivery and national campaigns.

These variations demonstrate that there is no single model. However, they also highlight a critical point: when communications is misrepresented as a narrow HR function, its strategic contribution is diminished, whatever the setting.

Why placement matters

Organisational structures send signals about value. When communications is tucked under people and workforce, it suggests comms is a subsidiary service – useful for supporting staff engagement, but not central to strategy. This has two consequences:

Reduced influence – communicators may be brought in late, after decisions are already made, limiting their ability to advise on how proposals will land with staff, patients, or the public.

Misaligned priorities – communications resource may be directed disproportionately towards HR initiatives, at the expense of external engagement, behaviour change, or crisis readiness.

By contrast, when communications is positioned alongside corporate affairs, transformation, or directly reporting to the chief executive, it signals that comms is an essential enabler of strategic goals. This positioning ensures the profession has both the authority and proximity needed to shape decisions in real time.

The risks of staying in the shadows

The public sector is under increasing pressure: rising demand, limited resources, heightened scrutiny, and the constant risk of misinformation. In this environment, the cost of sidelining communications is high.

Without strategic comms:

Behaviour change campaigns falter, costing services more in the long run.
Trust is eroded when organisations communicate poorly during crises.
Staff disengagement grows, as internal comms is treated as transactional rather than cultural.
Leaders miss crucial insights about how communities will respond to changes in services or policy.

Put bluntly, if communications is misrepresented as an operational tool, public services will fail to connect with the very people they exist to serve.

A call for change

So what needs to happen? Three things:

Reposition communications as a strategic function. Communications should sit alongside strategy and corporate affairs, not under workforce. This structural change sends a powerful signal about value and ensures communicators have a seat at the table where decisions are made.
Recognise communications as a leadership discipline. Senior communicators must be treated as advisers, not simply deliverers of messages. Our expertise in audience insight, behavioural science, and narrative shaping should inform policy, planning, and transformation.
Invest in professional standards. The communications profession has matured significantly in recent years, supported by bodies such as the CIPR and GCS. Many of us hold professional accreditations, including Chartered PR status, which demonstrates a commitment to ethics, continuous learning, and leadership in practice. Public sector leaders should recognise and harness this professionalism, ensuring comms teams are resourced, skilled, and empowered to lead.

We are entering an age where trust is fragile, misinformation spreads rapidly, and communities expect transparency and authenticity from their public services. Against this backdrop, communications is not just helpful – it is essential.

To continue grouping it under people and workforce is to misunderstand its true role and to stifle its potential. The public sector cannot afford to misrepresent communications any longer. It is time we recognise it for what it is: a strategic function at the heart of leadership, shaping how services connect with the people they exist to serve.

A colour portrait of James Sharp against a beige background. James is a white man with short dark hair who wears glasses and a white shirt.

James Sharp is specialist communications manager (digital, eMarketing and internal) at NHS Mid and South Essex. He is also a chartered PR and co-chair of CIPR East Anglia.