Communication Strategies Are Not a Sandwich
After 20 years of developing and implementing communication strategies, I have noticed a pattern. When leaders — school boards, superintendents, and Cabinet members — review a communication strategy, they sometimes start treating it like a custom sandwich order.
“Let’s leave out the two-way community engagement. That creates too much exposure.”
“We don’t want to implement the social media strategy. We don’t have time for that.”
“We don’t need a Superintendent’s advisory committee.”
It is as if these elements are optional extras. As if community engagement is pickles, social media is mayonnaise, and an advisory committee is onions.
But they are not.
They are part of a connected strategy designed to build trust, strengthen relationships, and support better decision-making.
It’s Not a Comprehensive Approach Problem
Every communication strategy I develop is grounded in research, planning, best practices, and evaluation. It follows the four-step public relations process that is foundational to my Accreditation in Public Relations: research, planning, implementation, and evaluation.
That work is not theoretical. It includes surveys, focus groups, interviews, document reviews, and analysis of district context and prior practices. It also draws from successful approaches I have seen work across districts over the past two decades, along with insights and models from organizations such as the California School Public Relations Association and the National School Public Relations Association.
In other words, these recommendations are not random ideas. They are included because they serve a purpose.
It’s Not a Capacity Problem
My three-year communication strategies include implementation support in year one and capacity-building so staff can successfully carry the work forward in years two and three. In many cases, I continue supporting districts throughout the full strategy period. For issues management and other high-stakes work, I often stay engaged through strategy development, implementation, and evaluation.
So when leaders decide to remove key elements, it is usually not because there is no path to implementation.
It’s Not a Budget Problem
When budget concerns are raised about implementing communication tactics, I thoughtfully develop approaches that phase in recommendations over time based on available resources. That may mean prioritizing the highest-impact tactics first, building internal capacity, or sequencing implementation across multiple years.
A strong communication strategy does not require doing everything at once, but it does require commitment to the right work over time.
Nor Is It Usually a Lack of Understanding Problem
When a leader wants to cut an engagement tactic, reduce transparency, or eliminate feedback channels, I explain the likely consequences clearly: if you do not meaningfully engage with employees, families, or community members, trust will erode. If you communicate inconsistently, people will fill in the gaps with assumptions. If you limit opportunities for dialogue, frustration often grows rather than disappears.
Most leaders understand this when it is explained plainly.
What I Think the Real Issue Often Is
I believe it is often fear and discomfort.
Fear of criticism. Fear of conflict. Fear of difficult questions. Discomfort with vulnerability. Discomfort with not being able to fully control the message. Discomfort with making space for authentic dialogue when that dialogue may surface frustration, skepticism, or opposition.
It is often easier in the moment to reduce exposure by limiting two-way communication. It is easier to communicate less frequently. It is easier to move an initiative forward with fewer opportunities for stakeholder input. It is easier to control the message than to build the relationship.
But easier is not the same as better.
How Leaders Can Work Through It
The good news is that fear and discomfort do not have to drive decision-making. They can be addressed through preparation, coaching, clear processes, and a shared commitment to transparency.
Leaders do not have to be perfect communicators to build trust, but they do have to be willing to show up consistently, listen honestly, and stay engaged when communication feels challenging.
Why This Matters
Communication and trust-building are endurance work. They require consistency, openness, and a willingness to stay in the conversation, especially when the conversation is uncomfortable.
Communication is not a single tactic or a box to check. It is not just a newsletter, a social media post, or a public meeting. It is the ongoing work of building and maintaining authentic relationships with the people an organization serves.
That is why communication strategies cannot be treated like a custom sandwich order.
You cannot remove the ingredients that create trust, transparency, and engagement, then expect the strategy to produce the same result.
Communication strategies are not a sandwich.
