How strategic communications drives real change

I recently led a change communications project for a state government client in Australia, focused on engaging internal practitioners on a road safety programme. While the initial scope appeared straightforward, it soon became clear that the challenge was more complex than anticipated. As the work progressed, deeper systemic issues emerged, requiring coordinated support and alignment across both central and regional teams to move forward effectively.

So, what role did communications and engagement play in navigating that complexity?

Reflecting on this challenge, I’ve pulled together some key insights that may be valuable for organisations looking to bring internal stakeholders along on their next transformation journey.

These reflections highlight how strategic communication, paired with genuine engagement, can surface hidden barriers, build alignment across teams, and create the momentum needed for meaningful change.

There were four overarching principles that underpinned the communications and engagement approach.

1. Open dialogue and shared ownership: We prioritised honest, robust conversations across both central and regional teams. Everyone had a role in surfacing issues, and only by objectively understanding the scale of the challenges could we begin to address them together. Transparency and openness, supported by strong governance, were essential to building trust and driving meaningful progress.

2. Listened and summarised: We actively listened to the voices across the system and swiftly identified recurring themes that were creating barriers for practitioners, hindering their ability to move forward in the process.

3. Priortise user outcomes: We kept the focus firmly on what matters most, delivering better outcomes for practitioners. Effective communication and engagement must rise above organisational silos, centring on the challenges the user faces. By modelling collaborative behaviours and embracing a solution-focused approach, leaders and teams can move beyond blame and work together to create meaningful, user-driven change.

4. Language and tone: What’s in a word and the way we frame it? Sometimes, everything. A single poorly chosen word or misaligned framing can derail a conversation, provoke defensiveness, and block meaningful dialogue. Language holds immense power to either drive improvement or deepen division. That’s why we were intentional in how we reflected what we heard, acknowledging what wasn’t working and establishing clear standards for communication going forward, grounded in the assumption of good intent.

The Communication Phases

Our communications approach was carefully planned and adapted at each stage of the programme. We worked in close partnership with both central and regional stakeholders, recognising that each phase brought its own challenges, opportunities, and moments for meaningful engagement. The phases unfolded as follows:

Staged Engagement Delivery

We designed a phased approach that moved from discovery through to defining next steps. This allowed space for people to share their experiences, voice concerns, and highlight what wasn’t working. Creating time for reflection, both collective and individual, was critical. One-on-one follow-up conversations helped deepen understanding, build trust, and ensure that quieter voices were heard alongside more vocal ones.

Identifying the Problem

Establishing a shared understanding of the problem was one of the most complex and sensitive stages. We needed to explain a multifaceted issue in a way that was simple, objective, and accessible to all teams. It became clear that many regions had developed their own processes and practices over time, which added layers of complexity. We worked to overcome the discomfort that can come with transparency—acknowledging that openness about challenges is the first step toward building a solution that works for everyone.

Understanding the Scale

As conversations progressed, we began to grasp the true scale of the challenge. This phase allowed us to more clearly articulate what needed to change, what resources were required, and the realistic timeframes involved. It also helped shift the dialogue from reactive problem-solving to proactive planning.

Developing a Way Forward

With a clearer picture of the issues and opportunities, we collaborated to define a shared path forward. This included agreeing on the core narrative and messaging to be used across all regional teams. By aligning on language and intent, we fostered a collegiate approach and built momentum around a unified vision for change.

Playing Back What We Heard

We reflected the insights, concerns, and ideas gathered throughout the engagement process. This wasn’t just about summarising feedback, it was about validating people’s contributions and showing that their voices had shaped the direction of the programme. We acknowledged what wasn’t working, clarified what would change, and reinforced our commitment to transparent communication.

Sharing successes and learnings

Employee engagement and motivation were central to the programme’s success. Throughout the journey, we were supported by internal communications and inspired by individuals who led with authenticity and purpose. Once consensus was reached on the way forward, we actively shared learnings, from both central and regional team. This helped build confidence, encourage connection, and reinforce the value of collective progress.

Next Steps

With the foundations in place, we transitioned to action. Clear next steps were communicated, including timelines, responsibilities, and mechanisms for ongoing feedback. We also outlined how progress would be shared and how teams would stay informed and involved. This final phase marked the shift from planning to delivery, anchored in shared ownership and a commitment to continuous improvement.

Working on such a complex and large scale difficult operational issue underscored the critical role that communications and engagement play, not just in delivering messages, but in shaping solutions. It became clear that communications must be embedded from the outset, actively involved through every phase of the project, and remain central through to delivery and beyond. Our communication plan was not static; it evolved in response to shifting dynamics, stakeholder needs, and emerging insights. Throughout, we continually revisited our approach and tactics to ensure they remained fit for purpose, responsive, and aligned with the broader strategic goals.

What did people want to know?

When communicating and helping to fix a challenge it isn't just about what you want to say, it's equally about what do people want to know, and on this complex programme there were some basics that we needed to address in our communication plans. People wanted to know:

Are our issues being acknowledged?

• The scale and complexity of the challenges varied across regions, making it difficult to fully grasp their impact and for many to feel seen or understood. To address this, we implemented a structured process to surface both individual and shared concerns. This included facilitated workshops, one-on-one conversations, and feedback loops that allowed people to tell their story in their own words. By actively listening and reflecting what we heard, we built trust and demonstrated that their issues were not only acknowledged, but central to shaping the way forward.

How are the issues going to be fixed?

• Transparency around problem-solving was critical. We provided regular updates on what had been done, what was underway, and what remained outside the scope of this programme. This helped manage expectations and reduce uncertainty. We also made sure to explain the rationale behind decisions, the dependencies involved, and the timelines required—so stakeholders could see that progress was being made, even if solutions weren’t immediate.

How will any change impact me and my work?

• Practitioners wanted to understand how proposed changes would affect their day-to-day responsibilities, workflows, and relationships. We addressed this by clearly outlining what would change, what would stay the same, and where support would be provided. We acknowledged the effort required to adapt and committed to making transitions as smooth as possible, through guidance, and ongoing dialogue. Crucially, we framed the changes not as additional burden, but as steps toward greater clarity, consistency, and effectiveness in their roles.

What did we want to influence?

To drive meaningful change, our communications and engagement efforts were designed to influence three key areas:

• Collective ownership of the challenge: The scale of the problems we faced meant that no single individual, team, or organisation could solve them alone. We needed active support and collaboration from all regional teams. Our messaging emphasised shared responsibility and the value of cross-regional insight, positioning the programme as a collective effort rather than a top-down directive.

• Clarity around scope and limitations: Not every issue was within our control, and it was important to be upfront about that. We clearly communicated what actions we could take, what sat outside our remit, and where we were advocating for change. This helped manage expectations and facilitated more constructive dialogue about what was realistically achievable.

• Encouraging scrutiny and engagement: The people closest to the work often hold the clearest view of what’s not working, and how to fix it. We created space for staff to speak up through briefings, feedback sessions, and targeted engagement activities. We also welcomed challenges from practitioners, recognising that scrutiny is essential to driving improvement and building trust.

What Tactics Proved Effective?

A staged engagement approach helped build understanding, trust, and momentum. These tactics may be useful for others designing change initiatives:

• Framing the Change: Clearly articulating the rationale, timeline, and implications for practitioners, fronted by senior decision-makers to signal leadership commitment.

• Discovery Workshops (In-Person and Online): Exploring current practices, identifying pain points, and capturing what works well through collaborative sessions.

• One-on-One Conversations: Providing space for deeper dialogue to clarify issues, validate insights, and understand day-to-day realities.

• Online Playback Workshop: Sharing what was heard, outlining next steps, and reinforcing transparency in the process.

• Final In-Person Workshop: Presenting proposed changes, gathering final input, and confirming alignment before implementation.

• Structured Communications: Ensuring practitioners were kept informed at every stage - what’s happened, what’s changing, and what’s next.

• Accessible Online Resources: Providing practical tools and materials that practitioners could easily access and apply in their daily work as a result of the change.

This approach supported meaningful participation and helped ensure the change was grounded in practitioner experience.

Lessons and insights

Throughout the programme, several key lessons emerged that helped shape our approach and strengthen outcomes:

• Build on what’s already working: We found that many regional teams had well established processes that were already delivering value. Rather than reinventing the wheel, we focused on capturing these practices, integrating them into the broader change process, and sharing them across the system. This not only accelerated progress but also reinforced the principle that good ideas can, and should, come from anywhere.

• Listen to lived experience: Practitioners often felt unheard and were being asked to align with processes that didn’t reflect their day-to-day realities. While this initially presented as a challenge, it became a turning point. By acknowledging their experience and making small, practical adjustments quickly, we built credibility and demonstrated that their insights were essential to shaping workable solutions.

• Accept that consensus isn’t always possible: We learned that it’s not always possible to please everyone, and that’s okay. What matters is being transparent about decisions, respectful of differing views, and focused on delivering outcomes that serve the broader system. Navigating complexity requires trade-offs, and part of our role was to guide teams through that with clarity and empathy.