The Hidden Cost of Guessing in Employee Comms (and How to Stop)
- ICP Staff
- Feb 5
- 6 min read
Guessing is the default mode in employee comms. Not because the team is careless. Because the team is busy, understaffed, and pressured to hit “send.”
The hidden cost of guessing in employee comms shows up later as rework, confusion, and leadership skepticism. You publish once, then you pay again to clean up what you couldn’t see.
This is a practical way to stop guessing and start knowing. Tool-agnostic. Built for practitioners. Foundations is the hero. Insights is the accelerant once the foundation is in place.
Stop guessing. Start knowing. A workflow you can run this week
This is the foundation. It works even if you have basic tools. It also makes analytics useful later.
Step 1: Write the outcome in one sentence
Finish this sentence before you draft a message:
“After this message, this audience should do/decide/believe ________.”
If you can’t write it, stop. You’re about to publish content, not drive an outcome.
Example:
Weak: “Announce the new travel policy.”
Strong: “Employees must submit the pre-approval form before booking travel starting February 18.”
Step 2: Break “everyone” into 3 to 5 useful groups
You don’t need complicated personas. You need groups with different jobs to do.
Start with these defaults:
People who must act
Managers who must reinforce
Teams who will get questions (HRBPs, service desk, local admins)
Leaders who must sponsor
Deskless/frontline teams (mobile-first or operational delivery)
This is how you stop writing one message that tries to serve incompatible needs.
Step 3: Choose one primary channel and one backup
Primary channel is where action should happen. Backup is where you catch misses and reduce repeat questions.
Example for a policy change:
Primary: targeted email to impacted employees with one link to the source of truth
Backup: manager toolkit plus a Teams/Slack post pointing to the same source of truth
If you don’t name a backup, your plan is “send and hope.”
Step 4: Write for scanning, then action
Use a structure that matches how employees actually read:
What’s changing (one line)
Who it affects (one line)
What to do (clear action)
By when (a real date)
Where details live (one source of truth link)
Where questions go (one owned place)
Put detail on the source of truth page. Keep the message clean.
Step 5: Pick 1 to 3 credible signals
You don’t need perfect measurement. You need credible enough signals tied to the outcome.
Reach: delivery success, list accuracy, distribution coverage (including deskless access)
Engagement: clicks to the source of truth, downloads of the toolkit, time-on-page if you have it
Action: form completions, acknowledgements, training completions, changes in ticket volume
If you can’t measure action directly, measure the closest proxy and be honest about what it is.
The hidden cost of guessing in employee comms
Guessing has a signature pattern. You’ll recognize it:
You send to “all employees” because segmentation feels like extra work.
You choose channels based on habit, not behavior.
You measure success with “open rate” and a quiet inbox.
You do two follow-ups because the first one didn’t move action.
You can’t answer the leader question: “So what changed?”
Here’s what that costs in real terms.
1) Rework you didn’t plan forThe work doesn’t end when you send. It starts again when questions hit managers, HR, and the service desk. Then leadership asks for a re-send “but shorter,” and you end up rewriting the same message three times.
2) Trust drain with leadersIf your only proof is “we emailed it,” you lose credibility. Not because leaders are unreasonable. Because they’ve seen important comms fail silently.
3) Uneven reach across the workforceOne-size sends usually over-serve desk workers and under-serve deskless teams. That gap becomes operational mistakes, not just “engagement issues.”
4) Change work gets sloppyWhen understanding breaks, rumors fill the space. Local leaders improvise. You end up managing multiple versions of the truth.
5) Measurement becomes theaterYou report numbers that don’t stand up to scrutiny, or you avoid measurement entirely. Either way, you can’t connect comms to outcomes. That keeps your function stuck in output mode.
Why basic email tools don’t provide credible visibility
Email is still a core channel. The issue is the visibility you get from basic email tools.
Open rates aren’t a stable truth. Privacy features and automated prefetching can inflate opens. “They opened it” is a shaky claim when leaders push back.
Audience intelligence is thin. You don’t learn what different groups consistently engage with, or where attention drops off.
Action is hard to prove. Even if you can see clicks, you often can’t connect them to completion of the thing you needed (a form, an acknowledgement, a training).
Benchmarking is weak. Without consistency and segmentation, you can’t tell whether a result is good or bad. You just have a number.
If your reporting starts and ends with opens, you’re still guessing. You’re just guessing with math.
A quick scenario that shows the consequence
Two teams roll out the same new process for expense approvals.
Team A (guessing): sends one all-employee email with a PDF. One week later, managers complain they’re answering the same questions. The service desk gets slammed. Finance blames comms for “not communicating clearly,” even though comms did what it was asked.
Team B (knowing): targets impacted employees, gives managers a short huddle script, links to one source of truth, and measures form completion. After 72 hours, they follow up only with the group that didn’t complete the action. Tickets stay manageable. Finance sees progress and backs the next change sooner.
Same effort level on the surface. Very different outcomes.
Before and after example
Before (guessing)
Subject: Important travel policy update
Body: Two dense paragraphs plus a PDF attachment
Reported result: “Open rate was 62%”
What you still can’t answer: Who needed this most? Who missed it? Did anyone actually do the required thing?
After (knowing)Subject: Travel policy change. Pre-approval required before booking (starts Feb 18)
What’s changing: Pre-approval is now required before booking travel.
Who this affects: Anyone booking work travel in 2026.
What to do: Submit the pre-approval form before booking.
Deadline: Starting Feb 18.
Source of truth: One link.
Questions: One channel owned by Travel Ops.
Managers: 3 bullets to reinforce in a huddle.
Signals: form completions in 72 hours, drop in repeat questions after a week, manager cascade completion.
Diagnostic questions to expose guessing
Run these in your planning huddle. If you don’t like the answers, fix the plan before you write.
What action do we need, from whom, by when?
Which group is most likely to miss this, and why?
Where will confusion show up first (managers, HR, service desk, Teams/Slack)?
What proof would a skeptical leader accept as “this landed”?
What is our backup channel if the primary underperforms?
What will we change if the signals are weak?
Checklist to stop guessing in employee comms
Use this as a pre-send gate. It saves time because it prevents the follow-up spiral.
Outcome sentence written (do/decide/believe)
3 to 5 audience groups named (not “all employees”)
Primary channel chosen (where action happens)
Backup channel chosen (where misses are caught)
Message includes action and deadline
One source of truth exists and is linked
Questions route to one owned place (not “reply all”)
1 to 3 credible signals defined (reach, engagement, action)
Follow-up trigger defined (what you’ll do if signals are weak)
Deskless/frontline delivery is handled, not assumed
Template: the 8 lines that reduce rework
Subject: [What changed] + [what to do] + [by when]
What’s changing:
Who this affects:
What you need to do:
Deadline:
Source of truth:
If you have questions, go here:
Managers, do/say this:
What happens next:
If you feel pressure to add paragraphs, put them on the source of truth page instead.
If you have analytics like Broadcast Insights 3.0, here’s how to level up
Foundations is still the hero. Without outcomes, real audience groups, and a single source of truth, analytics just tells you you’re inconsistent in more detail.
Once your foundation is solid, insights becomes the accelerant.
Build an audience baseline: learn which groups engage with what topics and formats, then stop over-sending irrelevant messages.
Benchmark the common stuff: define typical click-through and completion ranges for policy changes, benefits, and major updates.
Spot the drop-off point: if clicks are strong but completion is weak, the process is the problem. Bring that back to the business.
Target follow-ups: follow up with the groups who didn’t act, not everyone. That cuts noise and increases completion.
Report decisions, not dashboards: “Here’s what happened, what it means, and what we’re changing next.”
Create a Foundations Broadcast Account for Free
If your team keeps repeating messages and defending shaky metrics, the fix is not “work harder.” It’s to stop guessing.
Start with the foundation: clear outcomes, usable audience groups, one source of truth, and credible signals tied to action.
Create a Foundations Broadcast Account for Free.
Comments