Communication beyond campaigns

At the end of the year and beginning of a new one, many development and nonprofit organisations pause to review plans, priorities, and communication approaches. For some, this means mapping campaigns and setting publishing schedules. For others, it is about responding to immediate needs with limited time and resources. In this context, the idea that communication should behave less like a campaign and more like an operating system can be useful—but only if it is understood as a reflection, not a rigid model.

Communication practices vary widely across organisations. Some have dedicated teams and clear systems, while others rely on a small group of staff or volunteers managing multiple roles. Many community-led initiatives communicate through relationships, oral exchange, and trust rather than formal strategies or documentation. Any discussion about improving communication must therefore recognise that there is no single “right” approach.

Campaign-based communication often responds to real pressures. Funding timelines, emergencies, reporting requirements, and public accountability all demand periodic communication. In many contexts, especially humanitarian or under-resourced settings, communication cannot be continuous or carefully planned. Acknowledging this reality is important. The question, then, is not whether campaigns are wrong, but whether they are supported by internal clarity about purpose, values, and decisions.

The idea of communication as an operating system invites organisations to reflect on how communication emerges from everyday work. This does not require formal structures or sophisticated tools. At its core, it asks whether people inside the organisation share an understanding of what they are trying to achieve and why. Where such clarity exists, communication, whether formal or informal, tends to be more coherent and trustworthy.

Another limitation of system-based thinking is its emphasis on “proof.” Evidence is essential, particularly in development and nonprofit work, but not all forms of impact can be easily measured or documented. Community knowledge, lived experience, and informal feedback are often central to understanding change, even when they do not fit neatly into reports or indicators. Recognising these forms of knowledge alongside data helps avoid narrowing communication to what is easiest to measure rather than what is most meaningful.

There is also a risk in assuming that more publishing always leads to less clarity. In some contexts, communities and issues remain under-represented, and increased visibility is still necessary. The challenge is not volume alone, but relevance and coherence. Publishing more can be valuable when it responds to real information gaps and is grounded in local realities.

Leadership plays an important role in shaping communication, but it is not the only influence. Frontline staff, community partners, and informal communicators often carry the organisation’s message through daily interactions. A system-oriented view of communication should therefore recognise these contributions and avoid placing responsibility solely at the leadership level.

Cultural and organisational differences also matter. Ideas such as “operating systems” and internal alignment may resonate differently across contexts. For some organisations, communication is deeply relational rather than procedural. For others, it evolves organically rather than through deliberate design. These approaches are not weaknesses; they reflect different ways of working.

As the year begins, organisations may find it helpful to ask the following simple questions rather than how to adopt a new communication model: What are we clear about? Where are we uncertain? What do our communities and partners actually need to understand? How do we already communicate well, even informally?

Communication does not need to be perfect, constant, or highly structured to be effective. When grounded in shared understanding, respect for different forms of knowledge, and realistic assessments of capacity, it can support trust and learning in many ways.