Reaching the Whole University: Closing the Internal Communication Gap Between Academic and Professional Staff
1. Context & Landscape: Understanding the Divide
Universities are distinctive in their dual-professional workforce composition, comprising academic faculty whose primary tasks centre on teaching and research, and professional (non-academic) staff whose roles span administration, student support, professional services, and operational functions. While both groups are essential to institutional success, their contributions are often valued, perceived, and rewarded differently – with direct implications for internal communication dynamics and organisational culture.
Academic Staff: Expertise, Autonomy and Symbolic Capital
Academic staff are typically evaluated and rewarded based on research output, grant income, scholarly reputation, and teaching excellence. Within the academic sphere, scholarly achievement carries symbolic and institutional capital that confers status and legitimacy – an idea rooted in Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of academic capital (Bourdieu, 1986). This hierarchy reinforces academic staff’s perceived primacy in institutional narratives.
This structural emphasis on research and teaching also intersects with widely accepted principles of academic freedom, which protect scholars’ autonomy in inquiry and teaching and further entrench the notion that academic contributions are central to a university’s mission (Altbach, 2001).
Professional Staff: Operational Expertise, Invisible Work and Third Space Dynamics
In contrast, professional staff bring specialist operational expertise that enables universities to function effectively. However, research highlights that this expertise is frequently undervalued or rendered invisible compared with academic achievement. A qualitative study by Pilgrim-Brown (2025) found that despite often being highly qualified, professional staff reported encountering attitudes that positioned academic work as inherently superior.
Further work using the third-space concept argues that professional staff operate in hybrid roles that contribute directly to institutional strategy but lack formal recognition (Vere, Verney & Webster-Deakin, 2024).
Disparities in Innovation and Recognition
Academic work – especially breakthrough research – garners external prestige and institutional rewards. In contrast, professional staff innovations in administration or digital transformation often remain locally recognised but institutionally peripheral. PwC and Deloitte argue that authentic, high-performance cultures recognise diverse contributions across roles to reinforce collaboration and innovation (PwC; Deloitte, 2023).
Interpersonal and Structural Tensions
Despite improved collaboration post-pandemic, tensions persist, often rooted in misunderstandings about each other’s pressures and contributions. Academics may prioritise research prestige, while professional staff focus on operational reliability. These differing value systems can contribute to communication gaps and disengagement (Wonkhe, 2024).
These entrenched disparities in recognition and influence set the stage for one of the greatest challenges facing internal communication in universities today: ensuring all staff feel seen, heard, and valued.
2. Internal Communication: Needs, Challenges and Comparative Frameworks
Understanding why university internal communication often falls short requires comparison between higher education practice and communication strategies in high-performing organisations.
Audience Diversity and Segmentation
Corporate best practice underscores the necessity of audience segmentation. Communications should be tailored by role, department, and information need. Government guidance also emphasises that segmentation improves engagement and behavioural alignment (Communications Gov UK, 2023).
In universities, this is even more critical due to extreme variation in roles and communication preferences. Yet, many HEIs rely on generic bulletins or intranet posts that fail to address diverse needs, reducing relevance and reach.
Organisational Priorities and Strategic Alignment
Internal communication must articulate why messages matter — connecting daily activities to institutional strategy, values and purpose. Consultancy Group Deloitte (2023) recommend clarity, consistency, and alignment with organisational outcomes to build engagement and accountability.
Academic settings, however, often operate with siloed priorities: research output metrics, student satisfaction scores, and operational KPIs diverge across units, meaning messaging must bridge multiple, sometimes competing, narratives. Without clear alignment and prioritisation, messages are interpreted through fragmented lenses.
Engagement and Feedback Mechanisms
CIPD and McKinsey research highlight the importance of two‑way communication, where employees can respond, ask questions and contribute insight — a hallmark of effective internal comms that drives engagement and trust. (CIPD, 2022; McKinsey, 2023).
In universities, formal channels for feedback can be limited or inconsistent across departments, and informal channels or shadow networks often emerge instead. This can leave institutional leaders unaware of frontline sentiment and unresponsive to emerging issues, further weakening internal alignment.
Technology and Accessibility
The Modus State of Internal Communications report (2025) — a cross‑sector benchmark — finds that organisations struggle to engage frontline workers and distributed groups through traditional intranet and email channels.
In higher education, where staff include field‑based educators, researchers, campus services workers and hybrid‑role professionals, these challenges are amplified. Many academic and professional services employees may not have consistent access to desktop email throughout the working day, limiting reach unless alternative channels are used (mobile apps, push messaging, SMS, segmented alerts, etc.).
These issues are not unique to universities – but the structural and cultural complexity of higher education amplifies the risks of exclusion, misalignment, and message fatigue.
3. Sector-Wide Internal Communication Challenges in Higher Education
Across industries, internal communication is recognised as a strategic enabler of performance, engagement, and organisational resilience. McKinsey (2023) frames communication as a “superpower” that can unlock employee engagement by connecting teams to purpose, shaping coherent narratives, and enabling leaders to harness collective energy.
Similarly, PwC (2022) links effective communication to employee satisfaction and innovation, showing that poor internal communication correlates with disengagement, inefficiency, and lack of trust — with frontline and distributed workers particularly at risk of being overlooked.
When these insights are mapped onto the higher education landscape, the parallels are clear:
- Complex stakeholder groups in universities resemble those in large, diversified corporations — requiring segmented, nuanced messaging.
- Distributed and hybrid work patterns mean traditional email/intranet channels are insufficient to consistently reach all staff groups.
- Cultural norms around autonomy and decentralised decision-making in academic settings make strategic communication both more challenging and more critical.
What corporate and consultancy research adds to the HE context is a framework for structured, audience-centric communication — something many universities have yet to fully adopt.
To close this gap, we must first understand what makes internal communication in universities fundamentally different from that in the corporate world.
4. Higher Education Specifics: Comparative and Critical Analysis
This section examines how the distinct nature of universities shapes internal communication opportunities and constraints — compared with corporate contexts — and what this means for strategic messaging.
Organisational Complexity
Unlike most corporations, universities are multi‑mission institutions: they deliver education, generate research, manage community engagement, and steward complex regulatory and funding environments simultaneously. This multiplicity creates layered internal narratives that need to be communicated effectively to different audiences.
Academic staff may prioritise disciplinary reputation, research funding cycles and student outcomes, whereas professional services staff focus on operational efficiency, compliance and service delivery. Without tailored communication that speaks to these differing priorities, messages can appear irrelevant or disconnected.
Cultural Differences
Research in higher education organisational culture reveals that professional identities and hierarchies are embedded in institutional life. Historical norms have privileged academic work in governance and status, while professional services staff are often seen as “support” functions — despite their strategic contributions.
This cultural asymmetry has implications for internal communication:
- Perceived relevance: Academics may regard institutional comms as peripheral to their mission if not explicitly tied to research/teaching outcomes.
- Engagement barriers: Professional staff may feel their perspectives are under‑represented or undervalued in institutional messaging, reducing engagement.
Communication Silos and Borders
Academic disciplines and professional functions often operate in distinct silos with their own communication norms, channels and networks. Unlike corporate organisations with unified internal platforms and governance, universities may lack integrated communication architectures, leading to duplication, confusion and disengagement.
This fragmentation harkens back to corporate findings about frontline and distributed workers being “left behind” by traditional comms channels.
Technology Adoption and Digital Maturity
Corporations increasingly adopt modern internal communication platforms with segmentation, analytics, feedback loops, and multi-channel delivery as standard practice. Universities often lag behind — still relying heavily on email lists and legacy systems — reducing message relevance and reach.
Without technology aligned to user habits and expectations, universities miss opportunities to connect, measure, and adapt in real time.
Fortunately, digital solutions exist that are specifically designed to support higher education institutions facing these internal communication challenges.
5. Newzapp: Connecting Strategy to Engagement
Newzapp directly addresses these challenges:
- Segmented messaging by role, location, or department.
- Multi-channel delivery (email, SMS, app).
- Analytics to measure impact.
- Feedback tools to create two-way dialogue.
These features align with best-practice frameworks from McKinsey, CIPD, and PwC, enabling HEIs to communicate inclusively and strategically.
The right platform, supported by the right strategy, can unlock greater engagement and cohesion across even the most complex university environments.
6. Conclusion: Strategic Communication as an Institutional Imperative
The ability to reach every corner of a university with relevant, resonant communication is not a luxury – it is a critical factor in driving cohesion, engagement, and institutional success. This matters now more than ever as universities navigate hybrid work models, intensifying operational demands, and the need to unify around strategic goals.
For internal communications teams, this means moving beyond broadcast emails and static intranet updates. It requires a shift towards targeted, inclusive messaging strategies underpinned by evidence and technology. Communication must reflect the diversity of the university workforce and recognise that academic and professional staff engage differently, value different things, and interpret messages through distinct professional lenses.
Consider the experience of a university communications team trying to increase engagement with a new digital staff wellbeing programme. Initial announcements shared via university-wide email saw low uptake. By pivoting to a segmented Newzapp campaign – tailored separately for academic staff (emphasising workload stress and flexible access) and professional staff (focusing on burnout prevention and peer support) – they saw engagement rates triple. Staff surveys highlighted the impact of “being spoken to directly, not generically.”
This example reflects the broader lesson: communication is not just about content; it’s about connection. When HEIs communicate with intentionality, authenticity, and equity, they build trust. And where there is trust, there is engagement. Where there is engagement, there is change.
The future of internal communication in universities lies in understanding people, not just sending messages. Platforms like Newzapp are built for that future.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘The forms of capital’, in Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood.
CIPD (2022) Employee communication. Available at: https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/employee-communication/ (Accessed: 19 January 2026).
Communications Gov UK (2023) Segmenting your audience for internal communications. Available at: https://www.communications.gov.uk/guidance/internal-communication/ (Accessed: 19 January 2026).
Deloitte (2023) Culture and leadership. Available at: https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/consulting-risk/perspectives/culture-and-leadership.html (Accessed: 19 January 2026).
McKinsey & Company (2023) Unlocking organisational communication: Five ways to ignite employee engagement. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com (Accessed: 19 January 2026).
Modus (2025) State of Internal Communications 2025. Available at: https://info.modusdigital.com (Accessed: 19 January 2026).
Pilgrim-Brown, J. (2025) ‘Helping academics shine: an exploration into the relationships working-class professional services staff have with others in UK higher education’, Higher Education, 90, pp. 387–405. doi:10.1007/s10734-024-01328-5.
PwC (2022) Workforce of the future: Building a culture of recognition. Available at: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about/purpose-values-and-behaviours.html (Accessed: 19 January 2026).
Vere, K., Verney, C. and Webster-Deakin, T. (2024) ‘Crossing and dismantling boundaries: recognising the value of professional staff within higher education’, London Review of Education, 22(1), p.29. doi:10.14324/LRE.22.1.29.
Wikipedia (n.d.) Academic freedom. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_freedom (Accessed: 19 January 2026).
Wonkhe (2024) ‘Relations between academic and professional staff may be at an all-time high’. Available at: https://wonkhe.com/blogs/relations-between-academic-and-professional-staff-may-be-at-an-all-time-high/ (Accessed: 19 January 2026).
Speak with us and find out more
