Public Sector Communications: Stop Measuring Reach, Start Measuring Relevance
For many public service communication teams, success is still demonstrated through numbers that look reassuring: 87% open rate. 12,000 recipients. 95% cascade completion.
But reach is not impact.
In high-accountability, resource-constrained public environments, internal communication is frequently tasked with driving behaviour change — policy compliance, safety adherence, service reform adoption, cultural alignment. Measuring distribution alone tells us very little about whether that change actually happened.
The uncomfortable truth is this: you can reach everyone and influence no one.
It is time to move from measuring reach to measuring relevance.
The Comfort of Reach Metrics
Reach metrics dominate public sector reporting for three reasons:
- They are easy to measure.
- They are politically safe.
- They demonstrate visible activity.
Open rates, intranet views, and cascade confirmations provide a clean, defensible data trail. In regulated environments, proof of distribution often satisfies governance requirements.
But distribution is not understanding. And understanding is not commitment.
Broadcast cultures can create an illusion of control — “We sent it, therefore it worked.” In reality, employees may skim, ignore, misunderstand, or disengage entirely. In complex organisations already experiencing information overload, volume can actively undermine impact.
What Research Actually Tells Us
Decades of engagement and internal communication research demonstrate that effectiveness is not driven by exposure alone, but by meaning, trust and perceived relevance.
Employee engagement research consistently identifies:
- Clear line-of-sight between communication and organisational purpose
- Leadership visibility and authenticity
- Opportunities for employee voice
- Narrative coherence during change
as predictors of discretionary effort and behavioural commitment.
Communication that is perceived as relevant to an individual’s role, responsibilities and lived reality has significantly greater impact than generic, one-size-fits-all messaging.
In other words: meaning drives behaviour, not volume.
William Kahn’s foundational qualitative study of personal engagement and disengagement at work was based on participant observation and in-depth interviews conducted within two organisations (a summer camp and an architecture firm) (Kahn, 1990).
At the summer camp, counsellors who saw their role as “managing children” performed adequately.
But those who framed their role as “shaping a child’s confidence” behaved very differently. They invested more energy, showed more emotional commitment, and went beyond minimum expectations.
Nothing about the communication volume changed.
What changed was meaning.
Kahn’s findings did not identify communication frequency or distribution as drivers of engagement. Rather, engagement was associated with three psychological conditions:
- Psychological meaningfulness
- Psychological safety
- Psychological availability
Engagement occurred when individuals experienced their work as worthwhile, felt safe to express themselves, and possessed sufficient cognitive and emotional resources.
Subsequent quantitative research has reinforced this distinction. Macey and Schneider (2008), synthesising empirical studies, argue that engagement should be understood as a state linked to discretionary effort and performance behaviours — not merely awareness or satisfaction.
Similarly, Albrecht (2010), in a comprehensive review of engagement research, identifies job resources — including clarity, support and alignment — as predictors of engagement and performance outcomes. Engagement is associated with improved performance, organisational citizenship behaviours and reduced turnover intentions, but these effects are mediated by meaningfulness and resource availability rather than exposure to communication alone.
Across these studies, distribution metrics are not identified as explanatory variables for engagement outcomes.
Leadership Communication and Trust
Research into leadership communication provides further insight. Men and Stacks (2013, 2014), Studies of leadership communication in large organisations found that transparent, accessible leadership communication significantly increases employee trust and engagement.
In one large healthcare system studied, senior leaders issued regular formal updates about restructuring.
- Open rates were high.
- Trust scores were falling.
When leaders shifted from scripted bulletins to:
- Video messages acknowledging uncertainty
- Visible Q&A sessions
- Admitting what they did not yet know
Employee trust measurably improved.
The volume of communication did not increase.
The relevance and authenticity did.
The statistical models demonstrated that transparent communication had a significant positive effect on trust, which in turn predicted engagement and reputation perceptions.
Importantly, the construct measured was not communication frequency but communication quality — specifically transparency and openness.
These findings suggest that communication relevance — understood as meaningful, transparent and participative communication — has measurable effects on organisational outcomes.
Communication Measurement and Outcome Alignment
Contemporary practitioner research similarly critiques output-based measurement. Dewhurst and FitzPatrick (2022) argue that internal communication evaluation frequently focuses on channel metrics rather than organisational outcomes. They propose that communicators should align measurement frameworks with behavioural, strategic and cultural objectives.
This position reflects a broader shift in professional communication scholarship: activity is not equivalent to impact.
For public sector organisations, this distinction is particularly relevant. Communication objectives are often explicitly behavioural — for example, increasing compliance with clinical protocols, improving safeguarding reporting rates, strengthening ethical standards, or embedding reform initiatives.
If behavioural change is the objective, evaluation frameworks must include behavioural indicators — not only confirmation of message delivery.
The Limits of Broadcast Models
Engagement theory also highlights the role of participation. Smythe (2013), drawing on organisational case analyses and leadership research, argues that engagement is fundamentally relational and participative. Command-and-control communication models — characterised by one-way transmission — are structurally limited in generating commitment.
This argument aligns with the Job Demands–Resources model frequently cited in engagement literature (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). In this framework, engagement is strengthened when employees experience adequate resources, including information clarity and supportive leadership. Information overload or ambiguity, by contrast, functions as a demand that can undermine engagement.
Again, the emphasis is on clarity and support — not message volume.
From Reach to Relevance: A Measurement Reframing
The empirical literature does not directly test a “reach versus relevance” measurement debate. However, it consistently demonstrates that:
Meaningfulness predicts engagement (Kahn, 1990)
Transparent communication predicts trust and engagement (Men and Stacks, 2013; 2014)
Job resources such as clarity predict performance outcomes (Albrecht, 2010; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007)
Participative communication strengthens commitment (Smythe, 2013)
None of these constructs are operationalised through distribution volume.
This absence is instructive.
A reach-based model answers the question: Was the message delivered?
A relevance-based model asks: Was the message meaningful to its audience?
- Did it enhance clarity?
- Did it strengthen trust?
- Did behaviour change?
For public sector communication leaders, this reframing has strategic implications.
Practical Implications for Public Sector Communication
Public organisations operate in environments characterised by:
- High scrutiny
- Regulatory complexity
- Resource constraint
- Diverse workforce structures
In such contexts, distribution metrics remain necessary for compliance assurance. However, research indicates that they are insufficient as indicators of communication effectiveness.
To align with empirically supported drivers of engagement, evaluation frameworks should consider:
- Role-specific understanding measures
- Trust and transparency indices
- Behavioural adoption metrics
- Indicators of clarity and alignment
- Participation and feedback engagement
These measures correspond more closely to constructs validated in engagement research.
Conclusion
The academic evidence is clear: engagement, trust and performance behaviours are predicted by meaningfulness, transparency, clarity and participation — not by communication volume alone.
Public sector communication cannot rely solely on reach metrics if its objective is behavioural alignment, policy adoption or cultural change.
Measuring reach may demonstrate activity.
Measuring relevance demonstrates impact.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
FAQs
How should public sector organisations measure internal communication effectiveness?
Public sector organisations should measure internal communication effectiveness using behavioural and trust-based indicators rather than relying solely on open rates. Engagement research shows that meaningfulness and role clarity predict employee engagement and performance (Kahn, 1990; Albrecht, 2010). In practice, this means measuring policy adoption, staff understanding, compliance rates and trust scores alongside distribution metrics.
Are email open rates a reliable way to measure public sector communication success?
No, email open rates only confirm message delivery, not comprehension or behavioural impact. Engagement research does not identify exposure volume as a predictor of engagement outcomes (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Instead, clarity, transparency and meaningfulness are associated with trust and discretionary effort, which are more closely linked to performance outcomes (Albrecht, 2010).
What does research say about leadership communication in government organisations?
Research shows that transparent leadership communication significantly increases employee trust and engagement. Studies demonstrate that openness, substantial information sharing and opportunities for participation predict stronger organisational identification. Communication frequency alone is not identified as a driver of trust in empirical research.
What is the difference between reach and relevance in internal communication?
Reach measures how many employees received a message. Relevance measures whether the message increased meaningfulness, clarity and trust. Engagement research demonstrates that psychological meaningfulness and safety predict engagement behaviours (Kahn, 1990). Relevance therefore aligns more closely with empirically supported drivers of performance than reach alone.
Why does relevance matter in NHS and local authority communication?
Relevance matters because public sector communication frequently aims to influence behaviour, such as safeguarding compliance or clinical protocol adoption. The Job Demands–Resources model shows that clarity and support function as job resources that strengthen engagement and performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Communication that improves role clarity is therefore more likely to support behavioural outcomes.
How can civil service communication improve employee trust?
Civil service communication improves trust by prioritising transparency and openness. Empirical research shows that transparent leadership communication significantly predicts employee trust and engagement (Men & Stacks, 2013). Transparency includes substantial information sharing and participative communication, not merely increased message frequency.
What are behavioural metrics in public sector internal communication?
Behavioural metrics measure whether communication leads to observable action. Research shows that engagement is associated with organisational citizenship behaviours, performance and reduced turnover intentions (Albrecht, 2010; Macey & Schneider, 2008). In public sector contexts, behavioural metrics may include compliance improvements, procedural accuracy or participation rates.
What is evidence-based internal communication?
Evidence-based internal communication uses empirical research to guide strategy and evaluation. Foundational studies show that engagement is driven by psychological meaningfulness and safety (Kahn, 1990), while leadership transparency predicts trust (Men, 2014). An evidence-based approach measures these constructs rather than relying solely on channel analytics.
How can government organisations move beyond broadcast communication?
Government organisations can move beyond broadcast communication by incorporating participation and role-specific clarity. Research on engagement and participative communication suggests that involvement and relational leadership strengthen commitment (Smythe, 2013). One-way transmission models are structurally limited in fostering engagement.
What are best practice communication metrics for UK public sector bodies?
Best practice metrics include measures of clarity, trust, engagement and behavioural adoption. Engagement research links job resources such as information clarity and supportive leadership to performance outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Albrecht, 2010). Distribution metrics may support governance reporting, but they should not be the primary indicator of effectiveness.
References
Albrecht, S. L. (ed.) (2010) Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bakker, A. B. and Demerouti, E. (2007) ‘The Job Demands–Resources model: state of the art’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), pp. 309–328.
Dewhurst, S. and FitzPatrick, L. (2022) Successful Employee Communications: A Practitioner’s Guide to Tools, Models and Best Practice for Internal Communication. 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page.
Kahn, W. A. (1990) ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work’, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692–724.
Macey, W. H. and Schneider, B. (2008) ‘The meaning of employee engagement’, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), pp. 3–30.
Men, L. R. and Stacks, D. W. (2013) ‘The impact of leadership style and employee empowerment on perceived organizational reputation’, Journal of Communication Management, 17(2), pp. 171–192.
Men, L. R. (2014) ‘Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership, communication channels, and employee satisfaction’, Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), pp. 264–284.
Smythe, J. (2013) The Velvet Revolution at Work: The Rise of Employee Engagement, the Fall of Command and Control. Farnham: Gower.
Speak with us and find out more
