What Happened
The business press is catching up to what smart executives have known for years: communication belongs at the top of the org chart, not buried in marketing or HR. A recent industry analysis made the case that communication should be treated as a core C-Suite function, not a support service. The argument is gaining traction as companies face faster news cycles, louder stakeholders, and less tolerance for corporate silence.
The Communication Angle
Let's compare two types of companies. The first treats communication as a fire extinguisher: it lives in the corner, nobody thinks about it, and they grab it only when something is burning. The second treats communication like the CFO's budget function: it shapes decisions before they happen, not after.
The difference in outcomes is not subtle. When a company faces a crisis, a product recall, a leadership change, or a bad earnings report, the first type scrambles. They call the PR agency at midnight. They issue a statement that sounds like it was written by a committee of lawyers, because it was. The message lands flat. Trust erodes.
The second type already has a communication architecture in place. The CEO knows how to speak to four different audiences without changing the facts. The leadership team practices message alignment so no reporter can wedge them apart with a single question. When bad news hits, they move fast and they move coherent.
Here is the real comparison: treating communication as a function versus treating it as a skill. A function means it has a seat at the table when strategy is being built. A skill means someone gets called in to clean up the language after the decisions are already made. Functions shape outcomes. Skills dress them up. One is proactive. The other is cosmetic.
The argument for giving communication a permanent C-Suite seat is not about prestige. It is about timing. Every major business decision has a communication dimension: how it will land with employees, investors, customers, regulators, and the press. If the communication leader is not in the room when the decision is made, the company will spend twice the time and money managing the fallout.
This is exactly the kind of scenario I break down in Say It Right Every Time. The chapter on audience architecture gives you a framework for building communication into your decision-making process from the start, so you are never retrofitting a message onto a strategy that was built without one. That chapter exists because I watched too many smart executives make brilliant decisions and then explain them terribly, not because they lacked intelligence, but because they brought language in too late.
Key Takeaway
Map your last three major internal announcements and ask one question for each: was communication involved before the decision was finalized, or after? If your honest answer is "after" every time, you have a structural problem, not a messaging problem. Fix the seat at the table before you fix the words.
