NEW PERSPECTIVES

When and How to Go Negative

 By Mike Medeiros

There always seems to be an election campaign going on somewhere. Sweden and the German state of Sachsen-Anhalt both held highly publicized elections earlier this month. In Canada, campaigns are currently underway for the Quebec provincial election and municipal elections across Ontario. Brazil is also in the middle of its 2026 election campaign, while the United States is heading towards its November midterm elections. In the latter two cases, campaigns can get quite nasty.

Not all election campaigns are negative. But political attacks are a familiar feature of modern campaigning, and they can be some of the most memorable messages voters encounter.

But are they effective?

To answer that question, I spoke with Alessandro Nai, an Associate Professor of Political Communication and Journalism at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) at the University of Amsterdam. Nai is an expert on negative communication and negative campaigning.

For communication professionals, negative communication can be tempting when criticizing a competitor, responding to an attack, or simply trying to attract attention. But when does going negative actually make sense, and what are the risks? 

Does Going Negative Work?

There is a widespread belief that negative communication works. According to Nai, this belief is particularly entrenched among campaign consultants, who often see attacking an opponent as a necessary part of campaigning.

However, the reality is more complicated.

Negative messages can be effective at capturing attention, particularly when they are aggressive or provocative. They can also mobilize segments of the population that are already highly polarized or respond positively to aggressive messaging.

But attention is not the same thing as persuasion.

A negative message can hurt the target while also hurting the person delivering it. This is known as the backlash effect. While an attack may reduce support for an opponent, it can also reduce support for the attacker.

This makes it difficult to say that negative communication simply “works.” Its effectiveness depends on what we mean by success. Is the objective to attract attention, damage a competitor, mobilize existing supporters, change people’s minds, or generate media coverage?

A message that generates significant attention may look successful through media coverage, social media engagement, or impressions. But if that attention comes at the expense of the organisation’s reputation, the result may be less positive than the initial metrics suggest.

Not all publicity is necessarily good publicity!

When Should You Go Negative?

If negative communication can produce both benefits and costs, when should a communicator actually use it?

For Nai, the first consideration should be the image of the person or organisation delivering the message.

People do not evaluate a message in isolation. They evaluate it in relation to what they already believe about the communicator. An aggressive attack from someone known for being confrontational may therefore be received differently from the same attack coming from someone with a reputation for being positive and conciliatory.

This is related to what researchers call expectancy violation. We have expectations about how certain people are supposed to behave. When they behave differently, we notice it and may react negatively.

Nai points to gender as one example. Research suggests that women who engage in negative campaigning can sometimes face greater backlash because voters may hold stereotypes that women should behave in a kinder or more cooperative manner.

Similarly, a candidate with an aggressive public persona may be given more latitude when attacking an opponent because the behaviour is consistent with what voters already expect.

The same principle can apply outside politics.

Before going negative, communicators should therefore ask: Does this message fit our existing image?

If it does not, that does not necessarily mean the message should not be used. An organisation may deliberately want to change how it is perceived. But that choice comes with costs and needs to be made consciously.

The second question a communicator should ask is: What exactly are we trying to achieve?

A communicator might want to weaken a competitor, energize supporters, attract media attention, or change the public conversation. These are very different objectives.

Attacking a competitor may energize existing supporters, but it may also alienate people who are undecided or less committed.

Generating media attention may also be relatively easy through an aggressive message, but once journalists and commentators pick up the story, the organisation loses some control over the narrative.

Context matters too. There is a difference between initiating an attack and responding to one. According to Nai, audiences tend to be more forgiving when a communicator responds to an attack because a response is expected. But by responding, the communicator may also allow the opponent to determine the subject of the debate.

When Does Going Negative Go Too Far?

Perhaps the biggest danger is assuming that there is a universal formula for when negative communication becomes too negative.

Nai cautions against treating negative communication as inherently bad. Criticism can serve an important purpose. Negative campaigning can, for example, expose wrongdoing. More broadly, criticism allows organisations and individuals to challenge claims and hold competitors accountable.

The problem comes when negativity becomes an objective in itself.

Nai suggests that negative communication becomes particularly problematic when it is primarily an exercise in violating social norms or being aggressive simply for the sake of attracting attention.

The difficulty is that these norms are not universal. What one person considers impolite, another may consider perfectly acceptable. Those norms can also change over time.

Another important consideration is who receives the message.

Nai’s research suggests that people respond differently to negative and uncivil communication depending on their political alignment and individual characteristics. People who are closely aligned with the communicator are more likely to forgive attacks, even when they might otherwise find them distasteful.

Personality also matters. Individuals who are more aggressive or have a greater need for chaos are more likely to view attacks as acceptable or entertaining.

For communication professionals, this means there is no single audience response to a negative message. A message designed to energize one audience may alienate another.

That is particularly important in today’s fragmented media environment, where organisations communicate simultaneously with loyal supporters, critics, journalists, employees, and the general public.

Negative Communication Is a Strategic Choice

So, should communicators go negative?

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. Negative communication can attract attention and serve a legitimate strategic purpose; but it can also produce backlash, damage the communicator’s image, and give others control over the conversation.

For communication professionals, going negative should therefore be a strategic choice, not simply a reaction to the pressure to be noticed.

Before going negative, communicators should consider the communicator, the audience, the objective, and the context. Does the message fit the organisation’s existing image? Is the goal to weaken a competitor, mobilize supporters, generate attention, or shape the public debate? Who will receive the message, and how might they interpret it? Is the organisation initiating the attack or responding to one?

There is also another question worth asking: What happens if the message works?

An attack that successfully attracts attention can take on a life of its own. Journalists may pick it up. Supporters may amplify it. Critics may respond. The organisation may then find itself defending the tone or substance of its own message rather than communicating the issue it originally wanted to discuss.

Negative communication can be rewarding. In some situations, it may even be expected. But the fact that an attack gets noticed does not necessarily mean that it has succeeded.

For communication professionals, the challenge therefore is not simply knowing when to go negative. It is knowing why they are doing it, who they are speaking to, and what they are willing to risk in the process. 

Mike Medeiros is a political scientist and communications specialist with expertise in political psychology, public communication, and audience behaviour. He holds a PhD in Political Science and recently completed the Strategic Public Relations program at the University of Toronto.

AI Can Write the Message, It Can’t Own the Consequences.

By Oluwayemisi Mafe

 

Artificial intelligence can draft a media release in seconds. It can turn a lengthy report into social media posts, suggest responses to difficult questions, summarize stakeholder feedback, develop key messages and produce the first draft of an executive speech before many of us have finished our morning coffee.

For communications professionals working under constant pressure to do more, faster and often with fewer resources, that capability is enormously attractive but there is a question we should be asking more often; when AI helps create a message and that message causes harm, who owns the consequences? The answer cannot be the technology.

An AI tool will not sit across the table from an executive team explaining why inaccurate information was published. It will not answer a journalist demanding to know how a false claim made it into a media release. It will not rebuild trust with employees after confidential information is mishandled. And it will not stand before stakeholders whose experiences were misrepresented by language that sounded perfectly polished but fundamentally misunderstood them, we will.

That is why the most important conversation about AI in public relations is no longer simply about what the technology can do. It is about what we remain accountable for when we use it. As much as the efficiency is real, so is the responsibility.

There is little value in pretending communications professionals should somehow remain untouched by AI. When used well, generative AI can be an extraordinary productivity tool. It can help us overcome the tyranny of the blank page, organize information, generate alternatives, identify gaps in a draft and adapt material for different channels and audiences.

The technology will continue to improve, and communications teams will continue to integrate it into their workflows. The question, therefore, is not whether AI belongs in communications. It is whether our governance, professional standards and judgment are evolving as quickly as our adoption of the technology. Truth is, there is a fundamental difference between delegating a task and delegating accountability.

We can delegate aspects of drafting to technology but cannot delegate our responsibility for what eventually carries an organization’s name. That distinction matters. A sentence can be grammatically flawless but factually wrong. A response can be perfectly structured and culturally tone-deaf. A stakeholder message can sound empathetic without demonstrating any real understanding of the people receiving it. An executive statement can be eloquent while making promises the organization cannot keep.

AI can produce plausible language remarkably well. Professional communicators must determine whether that language is true, appropriate, responsible and strategically sound. While accuracy is only the first test, since much of the discussion about responsible AI use focuses understandably on accuracy, generative AI can produce incorrect information with remarkable confidence, making verification essential. Factual accuracy is only one dimension of communications judgment.

Context needs to be considered as a technically accurate statement issued during a sensitive situation can still cause reputational damage if it ignores what stakeholders are feeling or experiencing. A message that works for one community may be inappropriate for another. Language that sounds neutral to an AI system may carry historical, cultural or political significance that changes how people interpret it.

Then there is confidentiality as well. Communicators routinely handle information that organizations would not want entered casually into third-party systems; unreleased financial information, employee matters, litigation, government relations strategies, crisis scenarios, patient or customer information, acquisition plans and executive deliberations. The convenience of asking an AI tool to ‘summarize this’ does not remove our obligation to understand where that information is going and whether we are authorized to put it there.

Bias also presents another challenge as AI systems learn from vast quantities of existing human-created material. They can reproduce assumptions, stereotypes and patterns of exclusion embedded in that material. A communications professional who accepts an output because it sounds polished may inadvertently amplify those problems.

And then there is something harder to measure; judgment. Should the organization respond at all? Is this the right moment? Who needs to be consulted before we speak? What might this sentence mean to someone outside the room? What are we missing? What happens if this message becomes tomorrow’s headline? Those are not mere questions, they are asking for strategy, relationships, ethics and organizational consequence.

The danger of confusing fluency with judgment is perhaps one of generative AI’s greatest strengths and also one of its greatest risks even when it sounds convincing. We have traditionally associated articulate writing with expertise. AI disrupts that assumption because it can produce authoritative-sounding language without possessing accountability, lived experience or organizational context. This makes human scrutiny more important, not less as a beautifully written answer can still be the wrong answer.

For communications professionals, this creates a new kind of risk. When an AI-generated draft is already polished, we may approach it as editors rather than interrogators. We correct a phrase, adjust the tone and perhaps verify a statistic but responsible use requires harder questions. Where did this claim come from? What assumptions underpin this recommendation? Whose perspective is absent? Is this consistent with what the organization has previously said and done? Could we defend every sentence publicly? And perhaps the most important question; would I be comfortable putting my professional judgment behind this? If the answer is no, the content is not ready simply because the technology says it is.

Human-in-the-loop cannot mean human-at-the-end. Many organizations respond to AI risk with the phrase ‘human in the loop.’ That is a useful principle, but only if the human is doing more than proofreading the final output. Human oversight should begin before the prompt is written. What information is appropriate to provide to the tool? What problem are we asking it to solve? Is AI even appropriate for this particular task? What expertise should inform the output? Who has authority to approve the final communication? These decisions are especially important when communications involve vulnerable communities, sensitive employee matters, public policy, health information, legal issues or crises.

In those situations, the communicator’s role is not simply to make AI-generated content sound better, it is to ensure the entire communications process reflects sound professional judgment that may sometimes mean deciding not to use AI at all. Professionalism has always included knowing which tools to use. Increasingly, it must also include knowing when not to use them.

Communications needs a seat at the AI governance table because responsible AI cannot be left exclusively to IT, legal or information-security teams. Those functions are critical, but communicators bring a different perspective. We understand audiences. We understand how language can be interpreted beyond its intended meaning. We think about trust, reputation, stakeholder expectations and the gap that can emerge between what an organization intends to say and what people actually hear.

That perspective belongs in organizational AI governance. Communications leaders should be helping organizations establish clear expectations around issues such as what information can be entered into AI systems, which communications require mandatory human review, how AI-generated facts and sources are verified, when disclosure may be appropriate, who approves high-risk content, and how errors involving AI-assisted communication will be handled. This is not about building bureaucracy around every prompt. It is about ensuring that the speed of adoption does not outpace the organization’s ability to manage the consequences.

Stop press, just before you press publish, perhaps responsible AI use in communications can begin with a simple accountability test. Before AI-assisted content leaves our hands, we should be able to answer these questions. Is it accurate? Have the facts, quotations, statistics and sources been independently verified? Is it appropriate? Does the message reflect the audience, cultural context, timing and circumstances in which it will be received? Is the information protected? Have confidentiality, privacy, copyright and organizational data policies been respected? Whose perspective might be missing? Have we considered bias, accessibility and the stakeholders most affected by the communication? Who owns this message? Is there a human being prepared to stand behind its accuracy, judgment and consequences? If nobody can confidently answer the fifth question, the first four are not enough.

Our value was never just the words; there is another reason I believe this moment should excite rather than frighten communications professionals. AI is forcing us to confront a question our profession has wrestled with for years, what is the strategic value of a communicator? If our value is primarily our ability to produce competent copy quickly, then increasingly capable AI presents an obvious challenge. But that has never been the highest value of our profession. Our value is understanding the environment in which words will land. It is recognizing the stakeholder who has not been considered. It is challenging an executive when the proposed message and organizational behaviour do not align. It is understanding that sometimes the right communications advice is not say this, but change this. It is anticipating how today’s statement may become tomorrow’s reputational issue. It is knowing when empathy is required, when evidence is required, when silence is appropriate and when an organization needs to listen before it speaks.

As AI helps us do some of our work faster, perhaps that gives us an opportunity to spend more of our time doing the work that requires precisely what AI does not possess; context, courage, empathy, ethical judgment and accountability. The future of communications, then, should not be framed as humans versus machines. The more useful distinction is between capability and responsibility.

While AI will become increasingly capable, when an organization communicates, someone must still decide whether the message is true, whether it is responsible, whether it reflects the organization’s values and whether it deserves the trust of the people receiving it. Truth is, AI can write the message but it cannot own the consequences.

Oluwayemisi Mafe, MCIPR, ACIM, MNIMN, ANIPR, is a strategic communications and public affairs leader with more than 15 years of experience helping organizations build trust, strengthen stakeholder relationships, and navigate complex reputation and policy issues across Africa and Canada. She specializes in corporate communications, public affairs, health advocacy, stakeholder engagement, and inclusive communications.

Co-Presidents Message

There is something about September that always feels like the start of a new year. Even long after our own school days are behind us, the rhythm of the season has a way of inviting a reset. Students are heading back to class, routines are being rebuilt, calendars are filling up, and there is a crispness in the air that reminds us it is time to refocus.

For communicators, this is a natural moment to pause and ask: How do I want to show up in the months ahead? What habits will help me do my best work? What goals deserve my attention? Whether you are stepping into a new role, leading a team, building your confidence, navigating change, or simply looking for new inspiration, September gives us permission to begin again with intention.

It is also the time of year when many organizations begin planning and budgeting for the year ahead. As you consider priorities, campaigns, resources and team needs, we encourage you to make professional development part of that conversation. Investing in your growth is not a nice-to-have. It is how we stay sharp, responsive and ready for what is next in a profession that continues to evolve quickly.

That is where CPRS Toronto continues to play such an important role. Our community offers opportunities to learn, connect, exchange ideas, access professional resources, pursue recognition and stay current with what is happening across the public relations and communications landscape in Toronto. Membership is not only about attending events or reading updates. It is about being part of a network of professionals who understand the pace, complexity and impact of the work we do.

As we move into this new season, we hope you will take time to refine your routines, set meaningful goals and choose the supports that will help you keep growing. Think about the kind of communicator, colleague and leader you want to be this year—and then make space for the learning, relationships and community that will help you get there.

On behalf of CPRS Toronto, we wish you a productive, energizing and inspiring September. We look forward to seeing how our community continues to learn from one another, support one another and strengthen the profession together in the year ahead.

Sincerely,

Andrea Chrysanthou, APR & Erin Griffin

Co-Presidents, CPRS Toronto

As the PR profession continues to expand beyond traditional communications roles, practitioners are increasingly being called on to collaborate across disciplines, advise business leaders and help shape decisions. For September’s In Conversation With blog series, we connected with Jennifer McCormack, Vice President and Practice Lead, Healthcare, and Interim Managing Partner, Toronto at NATIONAL Public Relations.

With 24 years of communications experience, including 11 years at Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine Canada and four years at AstraZeneca Canada, Jennifer brings a wealth of experience in healthcare communications and senior leadership. We spoke with Jennifer about the evolution of her role, the value of cross-functional collaboration, the continued impact of AI and why communicators need to see themselves as business leaders and advisors.

How has your role as a PR practitioner evolved in recent years?

In recent years, my role as a PR practitioner has evolved into senior leadership and greater management of our business at NATIONAL. I am still very involved in the day-to-day management of client work but have added this greater responsibility.

What major shifts have you seen in the PR profession, and how are they shaping your work today?

I am so proud of our profession. I have seen the shift and evolution to so many areas of expertise. In my case, I have been in healthcare communications for some time, but there isn’t a day when I don’t work with my colleagues in public affairs, strategy, social or Indigenous relations etc. To do our work well, we need to collaborate with experts beyond our individual skillsets. As PR practitioners, we are also critical advisors within businesses. This wasn’t always the case, but we are making progress.

Looking ahead, what trends or changes do you think will define the role of PR practitioners in the future?

AI will continue to change the way we work and will improve efficiencies, but nothing can beat human counsel and advice. We always need to have our audiences in mind and remain empathetic and human-centric in what we do. What we do matters, but how we say it matters most.

What is your biggest piece of advice for PR practitioners moving forward?

My biggest piece of advice is to stay curious and learn the businesses you are in, whether it be in-house or on the agency side. As communicators, we are business leaders and advisors and need to see ourselves beyond tactical support. We can shape business decisions and policies, and it’s important we believe in that.

About CPRS Toronto’s In Conversation With blog series

Once a month, the In Conversation With series spotlights voices from across the communications field, featuring leaders and rising professionals who share their perspectives on industry trends, the future of the profession, and their own career journeys. These conversations aim to inspire, inform, and highlight the diverse experiences shaping the future of public relations.

If you would like to share your story or nominate a colleague, please contact us at communications@cprstoronto.com.

Reputation Isn’t Built in a Crisis, It’s Tested There

By Oluwayemisi Mafe

On a Friday afternoon, an organization’s carefully built reputation can be reduced to a single headline, a viral social media post, or a statement from a regulator. Within hours, executives are called into emergency meetings, communications teams are drafting holding statements, lawyers are reviewing messaging, and stakeholders are demanding answers. From the outside, it can appear that reputation is won or lost in those intense moments. In reality, the outcome was determined long before the crisis began.

After more than two decades working in strategic communications, public affairs and stakeholder engagement across healthcare, sustainability and highly regulated industries, I have observed a consistent pattern. Organizations that emerge from crises with their credibility intact are rarely those with the cleverest messaging. They are the ones that have spent years investing in trust, equipping leaders to communicate authentically, understanding their stakeholders and fostering a culture where employees already believe what leadership says. The crisis simply reveals whether that investment was made.

Reputation Is a Reserve, Not a Reaction

Reputation functions much like a bank account. Every transparent conversation with employees, every honest interaction with customers, every respectful engagement with policymakers, every fulfilled commitment to communities is a deposit. Every broken promise, delayed response, inconsistent message or perceived lack of accountability becomes a withdrawal. When disruption occurs, organizations draw upon whatever balance already exists.

Too often, communications strategies treat reputation as something to protect only when a crisis emerges. By then, the opportunity to build credibility has largely passed. This is particularly evident in sectors where trust is inseparable from public confidence. Whether communicating about public health, environmental policy or corporate responsibility, audiences are increasingly asking the same question; Why should we believe you now if we haven’t heard from you before? The answer cannot be manufactured during a press conference.

Trust Is Built Between Crises

One lesson that has remained constant throughout my career is that trust is not built during moments of uncertainty. It is built during ordinary days.

Organizations often invest significant resources in crisis simulations, media training and response protocols. These are all important. However, they sometimes receive greater attention than the everyday behaviours that determine whether stakeholders will extend the benefit of the doubt when challenges arise.

Trust grows when organizations:

• communicate consistently rather than only when necessary;
• acknowledge uncertainty instead of pretending to have all the answers;
• demonstrate that stakeholder concerns influence decision-making;
• honour commitments, even when no one is watching; and
• explain not only what decisions were made, but why they were made.

These practices rarely make headlines. They do, however, shape how stakeholders interpret every headline that follows.

Executive Communication Shapes Organizational Credibility

In nearly every significant communications challenge, attention eventually shifts to leadership. People do not simply evaluate what an organization says. They evaluate who is saying it.

Executives often assume that visibility is enough during a crisis. In reality, credibility matters far more than visibility. Employees, customers, regulators and communities look for leaders who demonstrate three qualities:

Clarity. Can they explain complex situations in language people understand?

Consistency. Does today’s message align with previous actions and commitments?

Authenticity. Do they sound like human beings acknowledging genuine concerns rather than reading carefully crafted talking points?

The most effective executive communicators understand that trust is not earned through perfection. It is earned through honesty. Leaders who acknowledge uncertainty while explaining what they know, what they do not yet know and what they are doing next often strengthen credibility rather than weaken it. Communications professionals have a critical role in helping executives find this balance. Our responsibility extends beyond drafting speeches or preparing media notes. We help leaders communicate with transparency, empathy and strategic intent.

Stakeholder Mapping Should Never Begin With the Crisis

One of the most common weaknesses I encounter is treating stakeholder mapping as an emergency exercise. When organizations first ask, who are our stakeholders? after a crisis begins, they are already behind. Effective stakeholder mapping is continuous because; stakeholders evolve, community expectations change, influence shifts, new advocacy groups emerge and employees become increasingly influential voices online. Communications teams must continuously reassess not only who stakeholders are but also:

• What matters most to them.
• How they prefer to receive information.
• Whom they trust.
• Which issues create concern.
• Where potential misunderstandings may arise.

Equally important is recognizing that stakeholders are interconnected. Employees influence customers. Community leaders influence policymakers. Professional associations influence media narratives. Investors increasingly evaluate environmental, social and governance performance alongside financial results. Understanding these relationships before disruption occurs enables organizations to communicate with greater precision when it matters most.

Internal Communication Is Your First Reputation Strategy

One of the most underestimated lessons from both public affairs and health communication is this; employees are rarely the last audience; they are often the first. When employees learn important news through social media before hearing from leadership, trust begins to erode immediately. When internal messaging differs from external messaging, credibility suffers. When leaders underestimate employees’ ability to recognize inconsistency, organizational culture becomes vulnerable.

Strong internal communication accomplishes far more than sharing information. It builds ambassadors. Employees who understand organizational decisions are more likely to explain them accurately, defend them appropriately and reinforce organizational values through everyday interactions.

External reputation often reflects internal reality. Organizations that communicate honestly with employees before speaking publicly consistently place themselves in a stronger position when scrutiny intensifies.

Lessons From Health Communication and Public Affairs

Working in health communication and public affairs reinforces one fundamental principle that facts alone do not build trust. People evaluate information through emotion, experience and existing relationships. Scientific evidence may be strong, policy decisions may be justified, operational reasoning may be sound, yet if stakeholders feel ignored, excluded or unheard, even accurate information may fail to persuade.

This is why effective communicators recognize that engagement is not simply about transmitting information, it is about listening. The organizations that maintained confidence during periods of significant uncertainty were often those that created genuine opportunities for dialogue rather than relying exclusively on one-way communication. Stakeholder engagement is not an activity that pauses during difficult periods, it becomes even more important.

The Strategic Opportunity for Communications Leaders

The communications profession has evolved significantly. We are no longer expected simply to write news releases or manage media inquiries. Today’s communications leaders influence executive decision-making, advise on organizational risk, shape stakeholder relationships and protect long-term reputation. This requires us to ask different questions, instead of asking How do we respond to this crisis? We should also ask:

• Have we built sufficient trust before today?
• Do our executives communicate with credibility?
• Do we truly understand our stakeholders?
• Are employees informed before external audiences?
• Have we earned the confidence we hope stakeholders will extend to us?

These questions are not crisis questions; they are leadership questions.

Final Thought

Every organization hopes it will never face a significant reputational challenge; few are that fortunate. Whether the catalyst is a public health emergency, a policy shift, a cybersecurity incident, a product issue or a leadership transition, disruption eventually arrives. When it does, the quality of the response certainly matters but the strength of the response depends on something much larger than a well-written statement. It depends on years of trust intentionally cultivated, relationships consistently nurtured, leaders prepared to communicate with authenticity and employees who believe the organization lives the values it communicates. Reputation is not built in a crisis; it is tested there because the real work begins long before the headlines.

Oluwayemisi Mafe, MCIPR, ACIM, MNIMN, ANIPR, is a strategic communications and public affairs leader with more than 15 years of experience helping organizations build trust, strengthen stakeholder relationships, and navigate complex reputation and policy issues across Africa and Canada. She specializes in corporate communications, public affairs, health advocacy, stakeholder engagement, and inclusive communications.

The Future of Communications Will Belong to the Most Adaptable Professionals

 By Anmol Harjani

Imagine stepping into a communications office ten years ago.

The tools were different.

The platforms looked different.

Artificial intelligence wasn’t part of everyday conversations.

Short-form video hadn’t transformed how organizations tell stories.

Audience expectations were different.

Even the pace of communication felt slower.

Now imagine where the profession will be ten years from today.

The truth is—we don’t know.

New technologies will emerge.

New platforms will capture attention.

Audience behaviours will continue to evolve.

The communications profession has never been defined by certainty.

It’s been defined by its ability to adapt.

And perhaps that’s the most exciting part.

---

Change Has Always Been Part of Our Profession

Every generation of communicators has experienced transformation.

The shift from print to digital.

The rise of social media.

The growth of mobile-first communication.

The increasing importance of data.

Today, we’re witnessing another transformation through artificial intelligence, automation and changing audience expectations.

These shifts can feel overwhelming.

But they’re also reminders that communications has always evolved.

Our profession isn’t changing for the first time.

It’s doing what it has always done.

Moving forward.

---

Technology Will Continue to Change. Human Skills Will Continue to Matter.

Tools will become faster.

Analytics will become smarter.

Content creation will become more efficient.

But there are qualities technology cannot replace.

Empathy.

Judgment.

Curiosity.

Ethical decision-making.

The ability to understand nuance.

The courage to ask difficult questions.

These skills remain at the heart of effective communication.

Technology may shape how we communicate.

People will continue to determine why communication matters.

---

Adaptability Is More Valuable Than Predicting the Future

Many professionals ask:

“Which platform should I learn next?”

“What trend should I follow?”

Those are valuable questions.

But perhaps an even better question is:

“How can I become someone who learns quickly?”

The professionals who thrive aren’t always those who predict change perfectly.

They’re the ones willing to adapt when change arrives.

Adaptability isn’t about knowing everything.

It’s about remaining open to learning something new.

Again and again.

---

Leadership Begins Long Before the Job Title

Leadership isn’t reserved for directors or executives.

Every communicator influences the people around them.

By sharing knowledge.

Supporting colleagues.

Encouraging new ideas.

Building trust.

Communicating with integrity.

Leadership often begins in small moments.

The meeting where you speak up.

The colleague you mentor.

The feedback you offer thoughtfully.

The decision to listen before responding.

Those moments shape workplace culture long before a title ever does.

---

Every Communicator Is Still a Student

One of the most inspiring aspects of this profession is that learning never truly ends.

Every campaign teaches something.

Every conversation offers a new perspective.

Every challenge strengthens professional judgment.

The day we believe we’ve learned everything is often the day we stop growing.

The most respected communicators remain curious throughout their careers.

Not because they lack experience.

Because they value it enough to keep expanding it.

---

Looking Ahead With Confidence

The future will bring uncertainty.

It always has.

But uncertainty isn’t necessarily something to fear.

For communicators, it’s often where opportunity begins.

New ideas emerge.

New voices are heard.

New ways of connecting with people become possible.

Those willing to embrace change while staying grounded in the principles of good communication will continue to make meaningful contributions to organizations, communities and society.

---

Final Thoughts

Throughout this month, we’ve explored trends, storytelling, career growth, thoughtful communication, audience understanding, curiosity and community.

Each of these topics points toward the same conclusion.

Great communicators aren’t defined by one campaign.

One platform.

Or one moment in their careers.

They’re defined by a commitment to learning, adapting and helping others understand the world around them.

The future of communications won’t belong to those who know every answer.

It will belong to those who continue asking thoughtful questions, building meaningful relationships and approaching every new challenge with curiosity.

Because the profession will continue to evolve.

And so will we.

---

Key Takeaway

The future doesn’t belong to the communicator with the newest tool. It belongs to the communicator who never stops learning.

Anmol Harjani is a Client Servicing Manager working with a remote company and a recent graduate of York University’s Public Relations and Communications program. She is especially interested in strategic communications, social media behaviour, and how PR practitioners adapt within a rapidly evolving digital landscape. She currently serves as the Communications Co-Chair on the CPRS Toronto Board.

The Best Careers Aren’t Built Alone

 By Anmol Harjani

Think back to the biggest turning points in your career.

Perhaps it was someone who encouraged you to apply for a role you didn’t think you were ready for.

Maybe it was a manager who believed in your potential.

A mentor who challenged your thinking.

A colleague who shared advice over coffee.

Or a conversation at an industry event that changed the direction of your career.

Rarely do those moments happen in isolation.

More often than not, they begin with people.

We often think of career growth in terms of skills, qualifications or experience.

Those things certainly matter.

But behind many successful careers is something equally important:

A community.

---

Communication Has Always Been a Collaborative Profession

Communications isn’t a profession you master on your own.

Every campaign involves multiple perspectives.

Every strategy benefits from different experiences.

Every challenge becomes easier when ideas are shared.

Whether you’re brainstorming with colleagues, learning from industry peers or exchanging ideas with professionals from different sectors, collaboration strengthens the work we do.

The best communicators understand that learning isn’t limited to classrooms or boardrooms.

Sometimes it happens in conversations between sessions at a conference.

Sometimes during a networking event.

Sometimes through a simple introduction.

---

Networking Isn’t About Collecting Contacts

The word networking often makes people uncomfortable.

It can feel transactional.

Like collecting business cards.

Or making connections only when you need something.

But meaningful professional relationships are built differently.

They grow through curiosity.

Generosity.

Consistency.

And genuine conversations.

The strongest networks aren’t measured by the number of people you know.

They’re measured by the number of relationships you’ve invested in over time.

---

Every Professional Has Something to Teach—and Something to Learn

One of the greatest strengths of the communications profession is the diversity of experiences within it.

A student may introduce a fresh perspective on emerging platforms.

A seasoned communicator may offer years of strategic insight.

A nonprofit professional may approach stakeholder engagement differently than someone in the corporate sector.

None of these perspectives is more valuable than another.

Together, they make the profession stronger.

Learning doesn’t only happen from senior to junior.

It happens in every direction.

---

Opportunities Often Begin as Conversations

Many career opportunities don’t begin with job postings.

They begin with conversations.

Someone remembers your name.

A colleague recommends you for a project.

A former classmate shares an opportunity.

A volunteer experience introduces you to a future employer.

Professional relationships rarely produce immediate results.

Their value grows over time.

That’s why investing in your community before you need something often becomes one of the most meaningful career decisions you make.

---

The Ripple Effect of Sharing Knowledge

Think about the last time someone answered a question, shared an article or introduced you to a new idea.

It may have taken only a few minutes of their time.

But its impact could have lasted much longer.

Knowledge has a ripple effect.

When experienced professionals share what they’ve learned, they strengthen the profession.

When emerging professionals contribute new perspectives, they help it evolve.

Growth isn’t something we keep to ourselves.

It’s something we pass forward.

---

A Strong Profession Is Built Together

Communications continues to evolve.

Technology changes.

Audiences change.

Organizations change.

The one constant is people.

The relationships we build.

The conversations we have.

The willingness to learn from one another.

Those are the things that help professionals adapt, innovate and lead.

---

Final Thoughts

Career success is often described through promotions, campaigns and accomplishments.

But those milestones rarely happen alone.

Behind every achievement is someone who shared knowledge.

Opened a door.

Offered encouragement.

Or simply took the time to have a conversation.

As communications professionals, we spend much of our time helping organizations build relationships.

Perhaps one of the most important relationships we can invest in is the one we build with our professional community.

Because careers don’t grow in isolation.

They grow through connection.

---

Key Takeaway

The strongest careers aren’t built by knowing the most people. They’re built by building meaningful relationships with the people who help us learn, grow and succeed together.

Anmol Harjani is a Client Servicing Manager working with a remote company and a recent graduate of York University’s Public Relations and Communications program. She is especially interested in strategic communications, social media behaviour, and how PR practitioners adapt within a rapidly evolving digital landscape. She currently serves as the Communications Co-Chair on the CPRS Toronto Board.

The Most Underrated Skill in Communications Isn’t Writing—It’s Asking Better Questions

 By Anmol Harjani

Ask someone what makes a great communications professional, and you’ll probably hear answers like:

“They’re an excellent writer.”

“They’re creative.”

“They’re great storytellers.”

And those qualities certainly matter.

But there’s another skill—one that receives far less attention—that often determines the success of a campaign before a single word is written.

It’s the ability to ask thoughtful questions.

Whether you’re developing a communications strategy, preparing a media interview, writing a speech or planning an internal campaign, the quality of your questions often shapes the quality of your work.

Great communicators aren’t simply people with the right answers.

They’re people who know how to ask better questions.

---

Curiosity Is More Powerful Than Assumption

Imagine receiving a request that says:

“We need to promote our new initiative.”

Many communicators would immediately begin thinking about social media posts, media outreach or content ideas.

But experienced professionals pause.

Instead, they ask:

• What problem are we trying to solve?
• Who are we hoping to reach?
• Why does this initiative matter right now?
• What would success look like?

Those questions often reveal opportunities—or challenges—that weren’t visible at the start.

Sometimes the real need isn’t promotion.

It’s education.

Sometimes it’s reputation.

Sometimes it’s employee engagement.

The better the questions, the stronger the strategy.

---

Questions Build Better Relationships

Communications is built on relationships.

Whether you’re working with executives, clients, colleagues or community members, people want to feel heard before they want to hear your advice.

Asking thoughtful questions demonstrates something important:

That you’re listening with the intention to understand—not simply waiting for your turn to respond.

Simple questions like:

“Can you tell me more about that?”

“What concerns you most?”

“How do you think your audience will respond?”

can transform conversations from transactional to collaborative.

People are far more likely to trust communicators who show genuine curiosity.

---

Better Questions Lead to Better Stories

Every compelling story begins with curiosity.

Behind every campaign, media profile or employee spotlight is someone who took the time to ask meaningful questions.

Instead of asking:

“What happened?”

Try asking:

“Why did this matter?”

Instead of:

“What did you accomplish?”

Try:

“What challenge did you overcome?”

The difference is subtle.

The impact is significant.

Thoughtful questions uncover experiences, emotions and insights that audiences remember.

---

Listening Is Part of the Question

Asking a question is only the beginning.

Listening is what gives it value.

In fast-paced workplaces, it’s easy to focus on preparing the next question before someone has finished answering the first.

But meaningful communication requires presence.

Sometimes the most valuable insight comes from a brief pause, a follow-up comment or an unexpected perspective.

The best communicators don’t rush conversations.

They create space for them.

---

Learning Never Stops

One of the most valuable habits communicators can develop is approaching every interaction with curiosity.

Every meeting.

Every project.

Every campaign.

Every conversation.

Each offers an opportunity to learn something new.

Experienced professionals often aren’t the ones asking fewer questions.

They’re the ones asking better ones.

Curiosity isn’t a sign of inexperience.

It’s a sign of growth.

---

A Skill That Grows With Your Career

Early in your career, questions help you learn.

As you gain experience, they help you lead.

They help teams think more strategically.

They uncover risks before they become problems.

They encourage innovation.

They strengthen relationships.

And perhaps most importantly, they remind us that communication has never been about having all the answers.

It’s about helping people find them together.

---

Final Thoughts

Communications is often associated with speaking, writing and presenting.

But before any of those skills comes something quieter.

Curiosity.

The willingness to ask.

To listen.

To understand.

Because the strongest communication rarely begins with a statement.

It begins with a question.

As communications professionals, our greatest value doesn’t always come from what we know.

Sometimes, it comes from what we’re willing to learn.

And that learning begins with one thoughtful question at a time.

---

Key Takeaway

Great communicators aren’t remembered for having every answer. They’re remembered for asking the questions that lead to better conversations, stronger relationships and more meaningful outcomes.

Anmol Harjani is a Client Servicing Manager working with a remote company and a recent graduate of York University’s Public Relations and Communications program. She is especially interested in strategic communications, social media behaviour, and how PR practitioners adapt within a rapidly evolving digital landscape. She currently serves as the Communications Co-Chair on the CPRS Toronto Board.