Better #43

Howdy friend,

It’s been a while!

I’ve been away for a few weeks on holiday - so please excuse the gap in newsletters. Hopefully I can make it up to you with today’s edition, which is a little different…

For starters, it’s all about problems - and much less about solutions. I’m talking about the tensions that shape how comms and social teams work (and sometimes don’t work) together.

Secondly, it’s a bit more reflective than usual. Less “how to fix it,” more “let’s name what’s really going on”.

I think it’s worth getting this stuff out in the open. The more we name these challenges, define them, and discuss them, the closer we might get to actually solving them.

At the very least, I hope this edition makes you feel seen - and reminds you that plenty of other people are navigating the same dynamics too.

Cheers 👋
Seamus Boyer

I run a lot of workshops, and I often like to start by asking participants what they enjoy most about social media. It’s a simple question - but it does more than break the ice.

More often than you might think, someone will take it as an invitation to make a statement, somewhat theatrically:

“I hate social media. I never use it. In fact …” (at this point, I start to wince, knowing what often comes next) “… I reckon it’s a complete waste of time.”

😩😩😩

It can be a little confronting - essentially saying their colleague’s job isn’t worth much - but honestly, I think it’s a crucial moment.

Because that reaction exposes a tension that’s remarkably common in government and council comms teams. And it’s rarely about social media itself. It’s about change, control, and good old human dynamics.

Today’s edition is about those tensions - the ones that quietly shape how teams operate, collaborate, and sometimes clash.

Here are five I see more often than I’d like.

👇

Tension #1: Silos and mixed priorities

The way teams are structured has a huge impact on how well they work together.

In many organisations, comms, marketing, and social media report into one line. But web/digital often reports elsewhere - as can the contact centre, engagement, media, or internal comms (which might sit under HR or even directly with the CE).

In smaller orgs, a handful of people cover all these roles (which brings its own obvious challenges). In larger ones, the structure itself can become a barrier to coordination.

Two consequences stand out:

• Silos. Not just physical (different floors or buildings), but cultural. Teams lose visibility of each other’s work, collaboration drops off, and opportunities to align are missed.

• No big-picture view. Metrics from social, web, media, and call centres feed up through different reporting lines. Insights and wins don’t get shared, effort gets duplicated or misattributed, and teams can end up working at cross-purposes.

That’s all bad enough, but a bigger issue is that competition can creep in - sometimes between frontline staff, but more often in my experience between SLT members chasing bigger budgets or influence.

It sounds petty, but it happens all the time. And when it does, teams don’t work as closely as they should - they may want to, but it’s hard when their bosses don’t prioritise or encourage it.

Tension #2: The account model dilemma

Under the account management model, comms advisors are assigned to specific projects, portfolios, or business units.

In some cases, they’re actually embedded within those teams - maybe even funded from that business unit’s budget.

The intent is good: improve alignment and responsiveness. But in practice, it can creates confused incentives and conflicting priorities.

Comms advisors naturally become champions for their business unit’s goals. They know their clients well, respect them, and want to help them succeed.

Meanwhile, the social media advisor is juggling priorities across the entire organisation - and are responsible first and foremost for maintaining the integrity and consistency of the channels. Which is where the tension kicks in.

The comms advisor wants to secure space for their BU’s content; the social advisor wants to protect the audience and channel strategy.

The result can be friction. Social teams feel pressured or undermined, BU advisors feel blocked or dismissed. Everyone’s trying to do the right thing - but the system itself makes that hard.

Tension #3: Resistance to experimentation

Social media thrives on experimentation - testing formats, iterating quickly, and responding to audience behaviour in real time.

I like to think of social media strategy as both the hypothesis and the test. How we think we can win and how we find out if that’s true. Which makes social media strategy basically focused, structured experimentation.

Traditional comms, on the other hand, thrives on control - careful planning, approvals, and risk management. And that’s not a weakness, it’s a strength in its own context.

But the two approaches can and do collide. Social advisors see opportunities in fast, adaptive content. Comms practitioners see risk, tone issues, and a lack of alignment with established protocols (style guide anyone?).

Neither is wrong. But the tension between agility and caution can be hard to reconcile.

Tension #4: The weight of past failures

Mistakes happen everywhere. But in government and council comms, the visible ones stick - and social media is nothing if not super visible.

Sometimes it’s just a few spelling mistakes or a post that went out at the wrong time. Other times it’s a misjudged attempt at humour or jumping on the wrong trend in the heat of the moment.

Regardless, once a mistake (or anything, really) is amplified online, you’re not putting that lid back on the jar.

I’ve seen pretty minor missteps referenced years later, long after the actual impact has faded. The memory of failure lingers, reinforcing risk aversion and making it harder for teams to try new things.

This can be particularly tough on new or junior staff, who end up second-guessing their ideas before they even suggest them.

And sometimes it’s just a few loud audience voices that make it seem like the post was controversial. A post with real strategic and creative thought might land badly with a few vocal critics, and that becomes the story - not the value or resonance it had with the intended audience.

Which is a tough enough lesson to learn without it getting thrown in your face later down the track.

Tension #5: Perceived value of social media

And finally - the question of value.

Too often, social is still seen as less “strategic” than comms, marketing, or engagement, especially when it looks fun or entertaining, which can make it seem trivial to some people.

Community management in particular cops this, and I’ve heard this kind of thing a lot: “Why are we spending so much time replying to those comments? Why not just ignore them?”

🙄

If you’re reading this newsletter, you know that social can play a deeply strategic role in shaping perception and building trust.

But when that’s not recognised, resentment can grow. Social teams feel dismissed. Traditional comms and media teams feel social is a distraction. (I’d say there’s an age or generation factor going on here sometimes as well)

And, to be fair, social teams don’t always help themselves. Reporting and internal influence aren’t everyone’s strong suit. Some social advisors are brilliant on the tools but reluctant to play the “look how good we are” game of internal influence which, unfortunately, still matters in most organisations.

So, what can we do about all this?

Honestly I don’t think there are any easy answers here (I mean, I picked these tensions precisely because they’re hard, right?).

But awareness is a powerful first step. Recognising these dynamics - and the very human experiences behind them - can help at least shift the conversation from blame to understanding.

We also need to be brave enough to talk about them openly. A good manager should create space for those conversations, not dodge them.

Beyond that, a few practical steps can help:

• Review the team structure. Many team setups haven’t kept pace with how much comms and engagement have changed in the last decade. Realigning reporting lines and responsibilities can unlock better collaboration.

• Run joint projects. Campaigns that deliberately mix people from different teams build trust and alignment. And shared accountability forces coordination. It’s also just fun and interesting to work with different people every now and again.

• Address friction early. Don’t let frustrations simmer. Encourage open discussion and resolve issues before they get too gnarly. Managers who can’t handle difficult conversations probably shouldn’t be managing.

• Invest in culture. The strongest teams I see spend time together - online and in-person. And they make time to think together about current challenges and future solutions, which is crucial.

Ultimately, a certain amount of push-and-pull is healthy between teammates. The trick is to manage any tension so it creates energy, not resentment.

That’s it for today.

Do any of the above challenges feel familiar?

If so, hit reply to this email and let me know - I love hearing from you.

And I’ll be back soon for more tips on how to get just a little bit Better 👋