We live in a world of constant communication flows, yet paradoxically marked by profound confusion. The inflation of information blurs the lines between truth and falsehood, between intention and reception, between action and its interpretation. In this context, an organization may act rigorously and meaningfully, but still be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and find its credibility and legitimacy questioned. Communication then becomes a condition for survival.
Organizational communication can be understood through a powerful analogy drawn from the human body, this extraordinary machine. What enables us to stand, react, run, love, or flee is an invisible, fast, ultra-efficient system: the nervous system. It connects the brain to all organs, transmitting critical information at lightning speed. But if these signals are poorly transmitted, misinterpreted, or delayed… everything collapses. Confusion sets in. The body no longer responds. This is exactly what happens within an organization when internal communication breaks down. An organization without smooth internal information flow loses efficiency, collective motivation, and the ability to plan ahead.
The relational system, on the other hand, represents external communication. It mobilizes the senses, language, emotional and social intelligence. It is the space where we encounter otherness. It enables interaction, cooperation, and coexistence. Like the human body, an organization lives in an ecosystem. It interacts with beneficiaries, partners, institutions, and communities. It therefore also has a relational system, its ability to understand stakeholders, inspire trust, make itself heard, and be understood.
This dual structure shows that communication is vital to the organization, just as it is to the human body. It “circulates life” within the organization and between the organization and its environment
In light of this metaphor, three core functions of organizational communication emerge:
- The coordination function (internal communication). To ensure the circulation of information, clarity of roles, and synchronization of efforts. Without this, projects stall, internal tensions rise, and the shared vision becomes unclear.
- The relationship and trust function (external communication). This makes the organization visible, audible, and understandable in a dense social space. In the context of civil society, where the causes defended are often complex, sensitive, and at times politically risky, this readability becomes essential for safety, mobilization, and impact.
- The perception management function: legitimacy and credibility. Every organization operates in a public space, where each of its actions is seen, commented on, and interpreted. A poor perception can weaken its credibility (its capacity to speack and act) and, as a result, its legitimacy (its recognized right to speak and act on behalf of the public interest). Yet both are essential to gain support from the public, partners, and donors.
As Lyonnelle Ngouana highlights, “communication appears as one of the privileged means of demonstrating the right and the capacity to act of humanitarian institutions. It aims to nourish the layers of legitimacy through the empowering signals emitted by disseminated images.” In saying this, Ngouana suggests that the systematic use of imagery in humanitarian narratives also serves to reaffirm the legitimacy of NGOs themselves.
The analysis of UN Quick Impact Projects reveals that institutional visibility is one of the primary goals pursued by the United Nations through these microprojects. More than immediate socioeconomic impacts, these initiatives aim to reinforce the image and acceptance of peacekeeping missions among local populations. However, when public recognition of the funding is captured by implementing partners or local authorities, the intended objective is lost. The environmental protection project DA10_014 in Blockhaus offers a clear example. Although fully funded by MINUSTAH, recognition went entirely to the IOM, its implementing partner, as summarized by one interviewed worker: “I don’t have a president. The IOM is my president.”
Similarly, in Jacmel, as part of the DSE10_002 public lighting project, poles purchased by MINUSTAH were labeled with the name of the mayor, who gained obvious electoral advantage. These cases illustrate a frequent disconnect between donor intentions and the actual effects produced on the ground.
By making community support for peacekeeping missions the core objective of QIP funding, the United Nations seeks to reinforce its legitimacy and credibility through microprojects. The underlying assumption is that beneficiaries will come to think: “If the peacekeepers are giving us money to repair bridges, classrooms, and improve rice production, it must mean they mean well, they care, and they truly want to help us.”
Furthermore, the analysis of visibility strategies and communication plans from donors like USAID, UKAID, the European Union, or KOICA reveals that communication about their image is, in fact, the only truly required counterpart. And for good reason: it is the central element that allows them to justify their actions to their host country and to ensure, without force, a kind of symbolic safety for their citizens. Once again, a logic of consent emerges among beneficiary populations: “If American people are so generous to me, funding what I need without me even asking, why would I be angry at them?”
Every organization, regardless of size or origin, is subject to the scrutiny and judgment of multiple publics (beneficiaries, partners, institutions, media, and general opinion). It has no choice but to invest in proactive, clear, consistent, continuous, and honest communication, in order to make its actions legible, its positions visible, and its proposals audible
Every organization has to invest in proactive, clear, consistent, continuous, and honest communication, in order to make its actions legible, its positions visible, and its proposals audible.
In the today’s environment saturated with information and competing perceptions, organizational communication can no longer be viewed as a simple vehicle for information. It becomes a vital system, comparable to the nervous and relational system in the human body.
The two-day workshop on strategic communication (June 17–18, 2025) explored the essential roles of organizational communication: ensuring internal coordination, building emotionally intelligent relationships with external actors, managing perception, and building lasting visibility, legitimacy, and credibility.
Drawing from practical reflection and enriched by empirical cases, such as the visibility strategies of the United Nations through QIPs or those of donors, supported by the insights of Dr. Lyonnelle Ngouana, a dedicated UNDP communication specialist, and Mr. Pierrot Koi, a seasoned communication expert from the private sector, the workshop concluded that in a world where narratives shape reality, to communicate is to exist.
This blog post was made possible thanks to financial support from the European Union under grant agreement No. NDICI AFRICA/2022/435-927. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EU.
