From Sandwiches to Strategy: Why Comms Needs Trust, Not Just Input

Why motivation isn’t magic and why everyone isn’t a communicator. A personal reflection based on professional experience.

Image description: A cartoon sandwich meditating with social media heart icons floating around it, created by Christine using Canva.

Originally published on Linkedin on 16 April 2025.

In purpose-driven organisations, especially in international development and education, we talk a lot about collaboration, ownership, and shared leadership. These are good things. Necessary things.

But, when it comes to communications (comms), shared leadership can get blurry. Communication is visible. Familiar. Everyone has written an email, used social media, or opened a report. So it’s easy to assume comms doesn’t need leadership, it only needs coordination.

That’s why I feel incredibly lucky to work where I do, where comms is appreciated and respected as strategic. Not just a support function. Not just a delivery channel. But, an essential part of how we shape partnerships and contribute to systems change and education equity. And I’ve felt the difference because it hasn’t always been like this.

In previous roles, particularly in the private sector or smaller NGOs, comms was often brought in too late, or treated as the “nice-to-have” at the end of a process. The intention might have been collaborative, but the effect was often undermining. I was “in comms,” but not really trusted to lead.

Even when the work was respected, the expertise wasn’t always. Not intentionally, but through familiarity. People know how to post on social media. They know how to format a newsletter. So they assume they know how strategic communication works. But having a LinkedIn account doesn’t make you a strategist. Just like making a sandwich doesn’t make you a chef.

This dynamic plays out in subtle but consistent ways:

• You advise against a PDF because it’s not accessible and are asked to “do one anyway because people expect them.” 

• You design a layout with intentional white space and are asked to “fill the gaps.” 

• You shape consistent messaging and are told the tone should change depending on who’s reading it. 

• You build a strategy and find yourself negotiating line edits at the eleventh hour.

None of this comes from a bad place. But over time, it sends a signal: your judgment is negotiable.

What cyberpsychology helped me realise

While studying #cyberpsychology, I came across Self-Determination Theory and it's helped me put words to something I hadn't realised I'd been feeling. The theory says people are most motivated when three basic psychological needs are met:

1. Autonomy – being trusted to make meaningful decisions 

2. Competence – having your skills recognised and respected

3. Relatedness – feeling connected to your team and purpose

And I realised this is what makes me feel good in my job. Because those needs are met. I’m trusted to lead (autonomy). My expertise is respected (competence). And I feel genuinely connected to the work and the people (relatedness).

It's also helped me reflect that motivation isn’t magic. It’s design.

What shared leadership really means

Shared leadership doesn’t mean everyone leads everything. It means recognising where leadership and expertise sits and protecting it.

In comms, that might mean saying:

“This person knows how to make this message work. Let’s follow their lead.”

It’s not about shutting down collaboration. It’s about knowing the difference between input and override.

Because almost everyone has an opinion on communication. But having an opinion isn’t the same as having technical knowledge and expertise.

You don’t need to understand the logic behind white space, accessibility design, or tone calibration; that’s what your comms colleague is there for. That’s their craft. Follow their lead.

This is where Self-Determination Theory becomes more than an academic model. It’s a mirror for how we lead.

• Autonomy is eroded when decisions are second-guessed or overruled.

• Competence is dismissed when technical skill is treated like personal taste. 

• Relatedness is broken when communication is seen as decoration, not contribution.

And when those things are lost, so is motivation.

I’ve seen this dynamic across sectors, across causes and across continents. It’s not about bad intent. It’s about blurred boundaries. And the cost is real: underpowered comms, demotivated staff, and messages that don’t land.

When comms is trusted, when expertise is respected, and when leadership is shared with intention, the work is not just easier. It’s better.

If you want strong communication, trust your communicator. 

Don’t dilute the work. Don’t crowd the kitchen. Let them lead.