Show Notes
After years running an internal communications team, Daniel Mendez emigrated from Chile to the U.S., where he faced a host of barriers to success. A language barrier. A small or non-existent professional community. The difficulty in proving himself. And yet, he emerged as a hugely successful communicator and connector.
Daniel is the brains behind the #CommsJobs hashtag, one of the most impactful job search functions in the communications profession.
So how did he get here? Where did the idea for #CommsJobs come from? And just how important are human connections when securing your next role?
This episode of The Internal Comms Podcast is raw and human. It gets to the crux of what it means to fight for yourself and to build connections that will drive you forward on your journey. Daniel and Katie touch on ‘suitcase words’, why it’s so important to pay it forward in your network, what resilience really means and why communicators should consider the flipside of AI panic.
As always, share your thoughts on this or any other episode of The Internal Comms Podcast using the hashtag #TheICPodcast. And thanks for listening.
More from The Internal Comms Podcast
In this episode of The Internal Comms Podcast, host Katie Macaulay is joined by leadership coach Kate Waterfall-Hill, the brains behind Linda the bad manager, a wonderfully awful alter ego who demonstrates everything that can go wrong with leadership.
In the first episode of Season 16, host Katie Macaulay sits down with expert digital workplace consultants Sharon O’Dea and Jonathan Phillips to explore the value of understanding what employees actually need – to “start with the appetite, not the fridge.”
In this special episode of the Internal Comms Podcast, host Katie Macaulay looks through 15 seasons of the podcast and pulls together some of her favourite conversations about the craft, the science and the power of storytelling in internal communications.
This episode is for everyone.
For decades, organisations have obsessed over employee engagement. But what if we've been measuring the wrong thing? What if engagement isn't the key to organisational performance after all?