✅ Why internal communicators must rebalance digital channels with face-to-face engagement
Technology can support communication, but it doesn’t come close to the psychological, emotional or cultural benefits of being in a room together.
Digital transformation has delivered the promised workplace revolution, but there’s a human cost that is frequently overlooked.
Remote meetings, real-time messaging and video are standard means of communication in corporate environments. But in the race to embrace efficiency, there’s a risk we’ve lost sight of an important truth: people crave personal contact.
This tension is explored in a research study, “The internal communication paradox,” by Ana Tkalac Verčič and Dejan Verčič, published in Public Relations Review.
The paper is required reading for anyone responsible for employee engagement and internal communications in hybrid workplaces.
Digital is efficient, but it doesn’t meet emotional needs
Drawing on a five-day diary study with 104 employees at a telecommunications company in Slovenia, the researchers tracked how different communication modes affected satisfaction. The results are striking:
One-on-one and group face-to-face meetings scored highest for immediate satisfaction.
Video calls came close, but email, messaging and phone calls consistently underperformed.
More frequent in-person contact predicted stronger satisfaction – digital contact didn’t report higher satisfaction even among digital advocates.
The internal communication paradox
This gap between convenience and connection has been called the internal communication paradox. On one hand, digital tools make communication more scalable, more flexible and arguably more democratic. On the other hand, they flatten nuance and weaken relationships. They can also contribute to feelings of isolation and disengagement.
It’s a paradox that communication leaders must now actively manage, especially in organisations with hybrid work policies. This isn’t an issue of technology and tools, but trust, culture and leadership behaviours.
The study comes with caveats. It’s based on a single organisation and the field work captures a snapshot rather than a complete picture. It’s a diagnosis of a situation, not necessarily a full prognosis. These issues all highlight the need for future work in this area.
What this means for practice
There are three important insights from the study for anyone working in employment engagement or internal communicators.
1. Prioritise face-to-face for complexity and emotion
Don’t reserve in-person time just for formalities or away days. Use it for the conversations that really matter – performance reviews, change announcements, conflict resolution or anything where nuance and trust are important.
2. Integrate, don’t replace
Digital channels should complement, not substitute, in-person interaction. Encourage managers to blend channels mindfully: messaging for updates, video for discussions and face-to-face for relationship building.
3. Design for human connection, not just transmission
The success metric in a hybrid environment should be always-aligned and not always on. That requires a rhythm of connection that sustains culture, belonging, and shared purpose. Think beyond tools to team dynamics, shared rituals, and leadership visibility.
The most technologically advanced communication strategy will fail if it doesn’t address human needs. Connection and care should be prioritised over speed and scale. You can’t automate belonging.
Reference
Tkalac Verčič, A., & Verčič, D. (2025). The internal communication paradox: Balancing digital convenience with face-to-face satisfaction. Public Relations Review, 51(2025), 102587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2025.102587