Most leadership teams believe that having a talented communications team means they have communications strategy covered. In reality, execution and strategy are fundamentally different capabilities that serve distinct purposes. Confusing the two creates gaps that become visible only when it's too late, usually in the form of employee confusion or communications that require immediate damage control.
This distinction has real consequences. Organizations that understand it communicate with clarity during critical moments. Organizations that don't spend weeks explaining what they meant after the announcement goes out.
I saw this exact pattern unfold with a financial services firm I advised. A larger international firm was acquiring them, and leadership announced it as a growth opportunity. The message was polished, the timing was coordinated, and the distribution was flawless. However, employees had been through a previous merger that resulted in layoffs. Within days, panic spread across both organizations.
HR was fielding constant questions about job security. Managers were trying to reassure their teams with information they didn't have. Soon after, leadership had to issue a second announcement clarifying that no layoffs were planned.
The communications team had done everything right. What was missing was someone asking leadership the hard questions before the announcement went out. Given that the last merger resulted in layoffs, how will employees interpret this one? What questions will surface immediately? Should the initial message address job security directly?
What Communications Execution Actually Is
Communications execution is the operational work of getting messages out the door. It's the how and when of implementation. Your communications team handles this work daily, whether in-house or contracted. They are skilled practitioners who know how to craft language, manage channels, and ensure messages reach their intended audiences.
Execution includes:
• Drafting announcements, emails, and internal memos
• Managing communication channels and distribution lists
• Coordinating with HR, legal, and other departments on messaging
• Handling day-to-day stakeholder inquiries and updates
• Producing content calendars and routine organizational communications
This work is essential. Without strong execution, even the best strategy falls apart. However, execution answers different questions than strategy does. Execution handles the operational work. Which channel works best? When should it go out? Who needs to sign off? These are important questions, but they assume the fundamental decisions have already been made.
To be clear, this isn't a criticism of communications teams. I've been part of communications teams myself. The best ones know exactly where their expertise ends, and strategic thinking needs to begin.
What Communications Strategy Actually Is
Communications strategy happens before execution begins. It's the senior-level thinking that determines what should be communicated and in what sequence. Strategy is about judgment and alignment. It's the work that ensures what you say reflects what you actually mean to convey.
The first question I ask in almost every engagement is what do you actually want people to understand from this. I tell them to explain it to me without corporate spin or polished messaging. They can be direct with me in a way they can't always be with their own teams. More often than not, leadership hasn't discussed this question explicitly among themselves.
Strategy addresses questions like:
• What does this decision signal to employees, investors, or the public?
• Are we aligned internally on what this change means and what it doesn't?
• What are the implications of communicating now versus waiting?
• Where are the gaps in leadership understanding that will create confusion later?
• What risks emerge if we proceed with the current framing?
• How will different stakeholder groups interpret this message?
This level of thinking requires distance from the day-to-day. It demands pattern recognition across contexts and an understanding of how communication choices compound over time. It also requires the ability to challenge assumptions without being constrained by internal politics.
Most importantly, it requires the authority and positioning to ask difficult questions of senior leaders before decisions are finalized, not after messages have already been drafted.
Why Internal Teams Can't Always Provide Both
Many organizations assume their communications team should handle both strategy and execution. In theory, this makes sense. In practice, it rarely works during high-stakes moments.
I see this tension constantly. A communications director tells me privately that a planned announcement will backfire. When I ask if they've raised this with leadership, they usually give me an exasperated eye roll and say something like, 'They've already made up their minds.'
This happens for three specific reasons.
1. Different Skills, Different Vantage Points
Execution requires deep knowledge of internal systems and processes. It benefits from being embedded in the organization. Strategy requires distance and objectivity. It demands the ability to see patterns that insiders might miss and to challenge prevailing narratives without concern for internal approval.
The communications manager who has spent months building trust with department heads may struggle to tell those same leaders their messaging approach is fundamentally flawed. The strategist without those same relationships can.
2. Time and Competing Priorities
Strategic thinking requires uninterrupted focus and the space to think several steps ahead. Most in-house teams are managing urgent execution demands. Stakeholders need responses, and content calendars can't wait. When execution is urgent, and strategy feels theoretical, execution wins every time.
This isn't a failure of the team. It's a structural reality. You cannot think strategically while simultaneously managing the tactical demands of day-to-day communications. The work requires different rhythms and different mental states.
3. Organizational Dynamics and Difficult Conversations
Strategic communications work sometimes requires telling leaders they're wrong, or at a minimum, that their current approach will create problems they haven't anticipated. This is difficult for anyone, but especially challenging for team members whose performance reviews and career progression depend on maintaining strong relationships with those same leaders.
External strategic advisors operate without these constraints. Their value lies precisely in their ability to deliver perspectives that internal team members might self-censor or struggle to articulate, even when they see the same risks.
When Strategy and Execution Work in Concert
The most effective approach isn't choosing between strategy and execution. It's recognizing that both are necessary and that they work best when they complement each other rather than competing for the same resources.
Here's what this looks like:
Leadership makes a significant decision. This could be a restructuring, a strategic shift, or a sensitive personnel change. Before any messaging is drafted, this is when strategic advisory engages. An external advisor works with leadership to clarify what the decision actually means, surface areas of misalignment, and think through how different audiences will interpret the change.
Once the strategy is clear, execution takes over. The internal team drafts messages or refines what's been outlined, coordinates timing, and manages the operational details of getting information to the right people.
As execution unfolds, strategic advisory may remain engaged to review draft materials or help leadership navigate emerging questions.
This isn't about one function being more important than the other. It's about recognizing that different phases of high-stakes communication require different capabilities. Strategy without execution is theoretical. Execution without strategy is reactive.
How to Know When You Need Strategic Advisory
Not every communication requires strategic advisory work. Routine updates and standard announcements can and should be handled by your execution team. Strategic advisory becomes relevant during critical moments, when communication choices carry real risk.
One question I ask prospective clients is whether they've ever been forced to spend unplanned time and resources explaining what they really meant after an announcement. If the answer is yes, you probably needed strategic work before you drafted anything.
Consider strategic advisory when:
• Leadership is discussing a major decision, but hasn't communicated anything yet
• There's internal misalignment about what a change means or signals
• The timing of communication feels as critical as the content itself
• A decision is about to be announced, and the stakes are high
• You're navigating a transition or period of heightened sensitivity
• Past communications have created confusion that required weeks of clarification
If any of these conditions apply, you likely need more than execution support. You need someone who can help you think through what you're trying to accomplish before you commit to a specific approach.
The Cost of Conflating the Two
Organizations that treat strategy and execution as interchangeable often discover the distinction only when something goes wrong. A merger announcement leads employees to interpret the news as a sign of financial trouble. A leadership transition generates more questions than it answers. In each of these situations, the communications team may have done everything right from an execution standpoint, but the underlying strategic thinking was never done.
In each case, the execution may have been perfect. Messages went out on time with clear language. However, the strategic work, the thinking that should have happened before drafting began, was either absent or insufficient. The result is communications that technically succeed but strategically fail.
The corrective cycles that follow are expensive, not just in time but in credibility. When leadership has to walk back or significantly clarify what was supposed to be a straightforward announcement, trust erodes. Employees begin to question leadership judgment. Stakeholders wonder what else might not have been thought through.
This isn't hypothetical. It happens regularly in organizations with capable teams. It happens because strategic communications work is often invisible until it's missing.
Moving Forward
If you're leading an organization through change or any moment where communication timing feels uncertain, the question isn't whether you have a communications team. The question is whether you have the strategic perspective to inform what that team executes.
I tell clients the same thing at the start of every engagement. I'm here to help you think through how to communicate the decision before anything gets drafted. I ask the questions your team can't ask and tell you what they're probably thinking but won't say. That's the work. It's uncomfortable, and it's necessary. When we get it right, your communications team has a clear framework and the clarity they need to execute with confidence.
Both matter and are necessary. The difference is knowing which one you're missing and having the clarity to address it before your next high-stakes communication begins.