Remote-first Internal Communication: Early Thoughts and a Call for Conversations

Is remote-first internal communication fundamentally different from its traditional office-based predecessor?? If so, what are the differences - and are there additional distinctions based on the origin story of the remote-first organization?

These are questions that I have begun to research through a series of interviews with communication professionals working with companies in various stages of the “remote-first” journey.??

I’m exploring these questions not only because I want to develop my Changing The Terms consultancy proposition to better support remote-first companies, but also because I am working with the Center for Strategic Communication Excellence to develop programming for communication pros who want to thrive in remote-first environments.

What do I mean by “remote-first?”??

Neil Miller has created an excellent typology of post-pandemic workplace models:

Model 1 = Everything is anchored to the office HQ.

Model 2 = The office is the HQ, but digital tools augment it.

Model 3 = Digital tools are the HQ, but the office augments them.

Model 4 = Everything is anchored to a digital platform.

For me, “Remote-First” includes everything in Models 3 & 4. That’s because, as I’ve learned through my initial interviews, the basic design principle of remote-first internal comms is the absence of common physical platforms that can host - or serve as - primary communication or operational channels.

This actually creates a base for a real divergence between office-based internal comms and remote-first internal comms, especially as companies in each model are likely to improve their internal comms to drive operational and organizational advantage.?

Office-based companies will likely make much better use of their physical spaces and integrate them more fully into their communication approaches. Doing so would reinforce their continued belief in office-based working to their employees, and consciously leverage proximity as a potential source of competitive advantage.

Remote-first companies, on the other hand, will have to find intelligent ways to choose alternative channels and platforms that overcompensate for the absence of physical space.??

After a few conversations, it’s not clear which channels, platforms and approaches will emerge as best suited for remote-first companies. Still, some insights emerge:

Remote-first startups have typical startup comms issues

Remote-first startups seem to start with very basic tools and approaches (Slack + Online Town Halls) and only become more sophisticated when necessary. Aside from the online town hall, they seem to miss central messaging and consciously facilitated conversations.

Noisebreaking an even bigger problem than at office-based companies

As their business is conducted mainly through internal communication channels, this lack of central strategic messaging and guidance builds up substantial levels of noise that employees are left to filter through and evaluate.? While they save in physical overheads, remote-first companies may be overburdening the real estate in their employees’ heads and slack channels with undifferentiated and unprioritized content.

Cheaping out on platforms

Initial conversations show a reliance on basic off-the-shelf tools like Slack and Teams rather than more sophisticated strategic tools like, say, Smarp.?

A call for conversations

I’m interested in going much deeper into this inquiry - I’m looking to have another ten conversations with people responsible for internal communication in “remote-first” organizations as defined above by the end of September.??

Subsidiaries of office-based organizations will also be interesting.??

All interviewees will be given a report and invited to an online presentation of the findings.

In closing

In closing: if we can get to common understandings of how internal communication can catalyze and accelerate performance in remote-first organizations, we can play a key role in making the remote-first revolution a commercial success. That’s not a bad goal, is it?

?