Tag: Institute of Internal Communication

  • IC Index 2026 by Institute of Internal Communication

    IC Index 2026 by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The IC Index 2026 report examines the state of internal communication in UK large organisations, focusing on trust, change, leadership, AI, manager communication and employee attention.

    It is original survey research: Ipsos Karian and Box surveyed a representative quota sample of 5,000 UK workers aged 18–75, all working in organisations with 500+ employees, between 15 and 29 January 2026.

    The geographic scope is the UK; the report also includes practitioner reflections from internal communication experts.

    Length: 37 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/insight-practice/ic-index.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the IC Index 2026 report?

    The report argues that internal communication has become more strategically important because employees are facing a tougher, more uncertain work environment, while trust, clarity and confidence are weakening. The subtitle — “The reality check” — is apt: the report presents declining communication ratings, falling trust in leaders, weak change communication, limited AI clarity and rising employee time pressure as warning signs for organisations.

    The authors frame internal communication not as a support function, but as a core mechanism for organisational resilience. They argue that internal communicators need to help leaders communicate with clarity, candour and compassion, build two-way communication systems, surface difficult conversations and connect organisational ambitions to employees’ lived reality.

    The report’s most important claim is that internal communication determines whether organisations can manage change, maintain trust and achieve their goals. The conclusion makes this explicit: organisations with dedicated IC teams have stronger strategic alignment, advocacy, information flow and representation, and the authors present this as evidence that internal communication is more critical when trust and change pressures intensify.

    2. What are the main problems the report identifies in the current employee experience?

    The report identifies six headline problems.

    First, employees are experiencing more organisational change but less clarity. More than half report restructuring in the past year, and over a third report redundancies; both are up 12 points compared with 2024. Yet only 49% agree that the reasons behind changes are clearly communicated, down seven points compared with 2023.

    Second, trust in leadership has fallen. The Trust Index is down seven points compared with 2025 and now sits at 58%. Trust in CEOs or most senior leaders and leadership teams has fallen by nine points each. Only half of employees say they trust their CEO or most senior leader, and only half trust the leadership team.

    Third, leaders appear to be overestimating how well they have communicated strategy and AI. Senior leaders are consistently much more positive than non-managers about strategy clarity, belief in strategy and AI communication. For example, 87% of senior leaders say the organisation has been clear on strategy and business priorities, compared with 57% of non-managers.

    Fourth, many employees feel poorly supported through change. Only 42% agree their organisation is good at helping employees adapt to change, while 31% actively disagree. The report links stronger change support to practical actions such as honesty about impacts, listening to employees, providing skills, and clarifying what people need to do differently.

    Fifth, frontline and digitally disconnected employees are less well served. Employees not frequently connected to a computer are more likely to hear about major changes through word of mouth and are less likely to trust leaders or feel psychologically safe.

    Sixth, employees have very little time for internal communication. Most employees spend ten minutes or less per day reading or viewing organisational news and updates, and just over one in five say they spend no or hardly any time at all.

    3. What does the report say drives employee confidence in the future?

    The report treats confidence as a multi-factor “equation”, not simply a product of optimistic messaging. Just under three in five employees — 57% — say they feel confident about the future of their organisation, while one in five actively disagree.

    The strongest driver of confidence is whether work processes allow employees to work efficiently. This is significant because it means confidence is grounded in employees’ day-to-day experience, not only in leadership narratives. Only half of employees agree that their organisation’s work processes allow them to work efficiently.

    The other major drivers are open and honest communication, clarity about strategy and business priorities, belief that AI is being used to solve the right problems, and feeling connected to people beyond one’s immediate team. The report’s implication is that internal communication can influence confidence, but cannot do so credibly if it ignores operational friction, weak processes or unclear AI adoption.

    This is one of the stronger analytical points in the report: employee confidence depends on whether the organisation feels coherent. Employees need to understand where the organisation is going, believe communication is honest, see that AI has a meaningful purpose, and experience work as efficient enough to make the future feel achievable.

    4. How does the report portray the role of leaders and managers?

    The report presents leaders and managers as central to whether communication lands — but also as part of the problem.

    Senior leaders are portrayed as increasingly disconnected from employee perceptions. They are much more likely than non-managers to believe that strategy and AI have been communicated clearly. On AI, for instance, 67% of senior leaders agree that leaders have explained clearly how AI will be used, compared with just 27% of non-managers.

    Managers are presented as the key sense-making layer. Most managers spend some time communicating with their teams each day, but more than half spend 30 minutes or less, and 14% spend less than 15 minutes. This matters because employees often depend on their direct managers to translate organisational messages into team-level meaning.

    The report also shows that manager support is uneven. More than three quarters of managers feel equipped to lead conversations about what is happening across the business, but this has declined compared with 2025 and 2024. Managers who receive training, preparation time or other structured support feel more equipped, while those receiving no support feel least equipped.

    The strongest practical insight is that managers adapting communication to their team context has a large impact. Employees whose managers do this well are far more likely to find communication relevant, rate communication as excellent and recommend their employer as a great place to work.

    5. What are the report’s most important implications for internal communication practice?

    The report’s main implication is that internal communication needs to move further upstream. It should not merely distribute decisions after they have been made; it should help leaders understand employee reality before, during and after change.

    For change communication, the report suggests that IC teams need to push for early, honest, jargon-free communication; clear rationale; regular updates; routes for questions; and visible listening. The evidence shows that employees are more positive when organisations explain the reasons for change, listen to views and clarify what people need to do differently.

    For leadership communication, the implication is that trust cannot be rebuilt through messaging alone. Leaders need visibility, openness, empathy and evidence that they understand employee challenges. The report connects falling trust especially to CEOs and senior leadership teams, making leadership communication a strategic risk area rather than a stylistic concern.

    For AI communication, the report implies that organisations are under-communicating the purpose and practical expectations of AI adoption. Only 35% believe their organisation is using AI to solve the right problems, and only 32% say their employer has clearly communicated how they are expected to use AI as part of their job.

    For channels and content, the report’s implication is that relevance is now existential. Employees have little time, and 56% say employer communications feel relevant. The report points towards personalisation, segmentation and opt-in/opt-out models, while also warning that these require good audience data and a serious channel strategy.

    Finally, the report argues that representation and good-news communication matter more than many organisations may assume. Only 42% see stories about people like them in internal communications, yet those who do are much more likely to be advocates and to trust the organisation. Similarly, good news is not merely “nice to know”: effective communication of good news has a stronger impact on advocacy and overall communication ratings than effective communication of bad news.

  • The Future of Internal Communication by Institute of Internal Communication

    The Future of Internal Communication by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The white paper argues that internal communication is becoming a strategic function in the future of work, as organisations face continuous disruption, AI adoption, hybrid work, trust erosion and shifting employee expectations.

    It is best described as a secondary-analysis white paper, drawing on prior IoIC reports, published books, external research and trend analysis rather than a clearly defined primary study; the methodology is therefore broad but not tightly specified in the report.

    A single primary datapoint is mentioned late in the paper: in March 2025, IoIC surveyed more than 300 internal communicators, but the overall report does not present one unified sample frame or clearly bounded geographic fieldwork; its perspective is broadly international, with several references to global trends and the Global North.

    Length: 33 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/resource/the-future-of-internal-communication-whitepaper.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the white paper about the future of internal communication?

    The core argument is that internal communication is no longer a support function mainly concerned with distributing information. The paper argues that it is becoming a strategic capability that helps organisations survive and adapt in a turbulent, fast-changing world. It presents internal communication as the function that enables people to feel informed, connected and purposeful, and therefore as a key driver of organisational performance, resilience and transformation.

    The report frames today’s environment as one of overlapping crises: geopolitical instability, AI disruption, cyber-risk, misinformation, climate pressures, labour market instability and declining trust. In that setting, “business as usual” is treated as over. The paper’s position is that organisations now need wholesale reinvention, and that reinvention cannot succeed without strong internal communication. Communication, in this view, is not just messaging; it is the mechanism through which organisations create alignment, build trust, support change and sustain human connection.

    A major shift in the paper is from communication as content production to communication as relationship infrastructure. The report suggests that, as AI takes over more routine and formulaic tasks, the distinct value of internal communicators will lie increasingly in fostering dialogue, connection, cohesion, listening and sensemaking across the organisation.

    2. Which forces and trends does the report say are reshaping work and creating this opportunity?

    The report says the workplace has changed “seismically” in recent years. It highlights hybrid and remote working, the rise of AI and other technologies, a new generation entering the workforce with different expectations, worsening mental health pressures, ageing populations, shrinking labour markets, activism, and broader geopolitical and economic turbulence. Together, these changes put heavy pressure on organisations to adapt and make workplace performance a much more urgent concern.

    On page 10, the paper groups the drivers into a set of meta-trends: Industry 5.0 and digital adoption, next-generation talent ecosystems, geopolitics, a reskilling emergency, the climate emergency, new organising frameworks, shifting attitudes to work and the need for more inclusive workplaces. The report stresses that these trends are complex, emergent and often hard to measure in neat ways. That matters because it means leaders cannot rely on stable, linear planning models.

    The white paper then narrows its strategic focus to four overarching themes: technology, sustainability, people and employment. It argues that each of these creates an opening for internal communication because each one requires extensive internal dialogue, adaptation and behavioural change. The successful integration of these trends into everyday organisational life, the paper says, depends on rebuilding human connection at work.

    The report also takes a sceptical view of simplistic techno-solutionism. It argues that many leaders are overly attracted to efficiency narratives, especially around generative AI, while underestimating the importance of critical thinking, trust, ethics and human judgement. That concern strengthens the paper’s case that internal communication has a larger future role, not a smaller one.

    3. How does the report build the business case for internal communication?

    The business case rests on one central proposition: large-scale organisational adaptation fails when communication is poor. The paper argues that modern organisations need ongoing change, not one-off transformation, and that continuous change requires continuous, thoughtful and empathic internal communication. In other words, communication is presented as mission-critical because it helps organisations actually implement strategy rather than merely announce it.

    The report then applies that case across four areas.

    In technology, it argues that AI adoption needs cultural change, leadership role-modelling, transparent narratives and knowledge-sharing.

    In sustainability, it says communication can use storytelling to build engagement, align people with strategic goals and strengthen commitment to sustainability and ED&I.

    In people, it links communication with engagement, colleague experience, active listening and more transparent leadership.

    In employment, it highlights the need to connect a more varied workforce, manage Gen Z expectations, and support continuous learning as skills demands change.

    The top-takeaways page distils this into a practical case: internal communication helps create cohesion across diverse employment types, build trust around AI, promote learning, connect colleagues with strategy, showcase sustainability, amplify ED&I, and equip leaders to be more transparent and authentic. These are not framed as optional enhancements but as factors that influence whether organisations can remain resilient and effective.

    What is notable here is that the paper does not reduce value to one narrow ROI measure. Instead, it builds a broader performance argument: communication improves trust, motivation, clarity, alignment, engagement, collaboration and adaptability. The report treats those as core organisational assets in a volatile environment.

    4. What new opportunities and roles does the paper envision for internal communicators?

    The report argues that AI will shift internal communication away from routine content creation and channel management and towards higher-value human work. It says the real opportunity is to use language and conversation to strengthen interpersonal relationships, build connection and create community. It even describes the future discipline as more “embodied”, meaning more focused on human relationships and organisational cohesion.

    The paper identifies a broad set of new opportunities: showcasing communication as foundational to collaboration, creating clarity and strategic alignment, curating human connection, cultivating community, harnessing colleague voice, breaking down silos, creating thinking spaces, coaching leaders and managers, enhancing colleague experience, embedding behaviour change, facilitating conversation and leveraging activism. These opportunities all revolve around making communication a live organisational capability rather than a broadcast function.

    It then proposes nine possible future-facing roles for the profession:

    • Chief Trust Officer
    • Leadership Communication Coach
    • Head of Business Strategy Communication
    • Digital Transformation and Change Communication Manager
    • Data Analyst
    • Head of Colleague, Candidate and Talent Ecosystem Experience
    • Head of Listening
    • Head of Culture and Community
    • Head of Sustainability Communication.

    These are presented as specialist additions that may emerge alongside existing internal communication work rather than replacing it outright.

    Taken together, these roles show the paper’s underlying belief that internal communication will expand into trust, strategy, change, culture, listening, experience and sustainability. The profession’s future, in the report’s view, depends on moving closer to the centre of organisational adaptation.

    5. What skills, assumptions and implications does the report highlight for the profession’s future?

    The paper says internal communicators will need significant upskilling. It highlights business acumen, digital/data/AI literacy, influencing, active listening, coaching, psychology and behavioural science, cultural intelligence, ethical communication, sensemaking, scenario planning and systems thinking. This is a much broader capability set than traditional communication production skills.

    A key assumption running through the report is that human-to-human communication will become more valuable, not less, as workplaces become more digitised. The paper assumes that AI may handle more structured content tasks, but cannot replace the distinctly human capabilities needed to build trust, foster psychological safety, interpret nuance, coach leaders, resolve ambiguity and maintain community. That assumption shapes the whole argument.

    Another important assumption is normative: the report clearly favours humane, inclusive, ethical and people-centred organisations over purely efficiency-driven ones. It is not a neutral trend map. It argues that organisations should prioritise trust, connection, belonging and sustainability, and that internal communication should advocate for those principles. That gives the report a clear perspective and purpose: it is not merely describing the future, but trying to shape it.

    The implication is quite stark. If organisations continue to treat communication as secondary, they risk poorer cohesion, weaker trust, less effective change, more disengagement and lower resilience. If, by contrast, they invest in internal communication as a strategic function, the paper suggests they will be better placed to navigate uncertainty, integrate AI responsibly, sustain collaboration and build stronger organisations over time. The closing message is effectively that now is not the time to deprioritise communication at work.

  • IC Index 2025: Your guide to IC channels and topics by Institute of Internal Communication

    IC Index 2025: Your guide to IC channels and topics by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The report is a focused internal communication channels-and-topics analysis from the IC Index 2025, examining what information UK employees in large organisations want, how much communication they receive, and which channels they rely on.

    It is based on original survey research: an online representative quota sample of 4,939 UK workers aged 18–64 in organisations with 500+ employees, fielded in late March to early April 2025; the geographic scope is the UK only.

    The methodology is clearly stated, though the report is limited to larger employers, so it does not represent smaller organisations or microbusinesses.

    Length: 9 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/resource-report/ic-index-2025-guide-to-ic-channels-and-topics.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the current state of internal communication?

    The core argument is that internal communication in large UK organisations is broadly functioning reasonably well at a practical level, but clear gaps remain in relevance, targeting and topic coverage. The report says there have not been “massive shifts” since the IC Index began in 2023, yet some movements are important enough to affect communication strategy, especially when looked at through demographic and organisational differences such as generation, sector and employer size.

    In essence, the report presents a fairly balanced picture. On the one hand, most employees say they receive the right amount of communication, most prefer written information, and email still dominates as the everyday channel for updates. On the other hand, substantial minorities still feel under-informed on key issues, especially pay and benefits, career development, job guidance, organisational challenges and hybrid working.

    So the deeper message is not that internal communication is broken, but that it needs to become more audience-aware and more disciplined. The strongest practical implication is that communicators should stop treating employees as one uniform audience and instead think more carefully about what different groups need, when they need it, and through which formats and channels. That “know your audience” theme is visually reinforced in the audience-segmentation spread on page 8.

    2. How well are organisations getting the volume of communication right?

    The headline result is that 74% of employees say they receive “the right amount” of internal communication, while 14% say they get too much and 12% say they get too little. That is a strong result overall, suggesting that most large organisations are not wildly misjudging communication volume.

    But the more important finding is what happens when organisations miss the mark. Employees who say they get the right amount are much more positive about communication overall: 75% rate organisational communication as excellent, their engagement score is 75%, and 72% would recommend their employer as a great place to work. By contrast, among those who say they get too little communication, only 17% rate communication as excellent and 42% rate it as poor. Those getting too much communication are also less positive, but not to the same extent: 42% still rate communication as excellent and 20% as poor.

    That leads to one of the report’s clearest conclusions: too much communication is less damaging than too little. In other words, information overload is not ideal, but information starvation is worse. The report frames this as a meaningful challenge for leaders and managers, who need to filter noise while still ensuring people get the essentials.

    There is also an organisational-size effect. Smaller large organisations, with 500–999 employees, are most likely to get the balance right: 83% of employees in that group say the amount is right. Among organisations with 10,000+ employees, that drops to 67%. This suggests scale makes communication calibration harder, likely because more business units and functions are competing for attention.

    3. Which topics do employees most want more information about?

    The clearest unmet need is pay and benefits. More than a third of employees, 36%, say they receive too little information on that topic. The next biggest gap is career and personal development opportunities at 31%, followed by guidance to help people do their job at 27%, organisational challenges at 26%, and ways of working or hybrid working, also at 26%.

    That pattern matters because it shows employees are not just asking for more grand strategy messaging. They want information that directly affects their working lives, their future prospects and their ability to do their job well. Pay, progression and practical guidance all sit near the top of the list. The report explicitly notes that the top gaps are heavily focused on the individual employee experience.

    At the same time, organisational meaning still matters. The report flags that too little information on strategy and direction, career development, job guidance, purpose and mission, and values and culture is associated with a particularly negative effect on engagement. So employees need both instrumental information and sense-making information: what affects me personally, and what tells me where the organisation is going and why.

    There are also a few trend signals since 2023. Ways of working and hybrid working has moved up six places on the “too little” ranking, while strategy and direction has dropped five places, implying some improvement on strategy communication relative to other themes. Meanwhile, diversity and inclusion stands out as the topic with the highest “too much” score at 21%, followed by values and culture and people stories/news at 15% each. That does not necessarily mean those topics are unimportant; rather, it suggests some organisations may be over-indexing on them relative to employees’ felt needs.

    4. How do employees prefer to receive information about organisational priorities and plans?

    The dominant preference is written communication. Overall, 53% say they would prefer to read information about their employer’s priorities and plans, compared with 31% who would rather talk about it in team or group discussions, 10% who prefer visual formats such as film or infographics, and just 6% who prefer audio.

    This is important because it pushes back against the idea that internal communication should automatically become more multimedia-heavy. The report shows that written communication remains the default preference for a majority. It also suggests that the appetite for audio has weakened: the share preferring audio has fallen by 6 percentage points since 2023. By contrast, preference for talking about priorities and plans has risen by 11 points, which may indicate a growing desire for interaction and discussion around important organisational issues.

    The pattern is not uniform across all organisations. In employers with 500–999 staff, only 44% prefer to read information and 39% prefer to talk about it. In organisations with 1,000 or more employees, the pattern stabilises at roughly 55% preferring to read and 28% preferring discussion. So smaller large organisations appear more conversational in how employees want to engage with priorities and plans.

    One especially interesting finding is that digital connectedness makes very little difference here. Employees who spend most of their time at a computer and those in less digitally connected roles have near-identical preferences for reading communication, and only small differences on the other formats. That weakens the common assumption that frontline or offline workers necessarily want less written communication.

    5. Which channels do employees actually rely on, and how do audience differences shape channel use?

    In practice, email is still the dominant channel by a wide margin. Sixty-five per cent say they rely on email for general news and updates. After that come one-to-ones with line managers at 35%, company newsletters at 34%, and team meetings at 34%. Then there is a second tier: colleagues by word of mouth at 25%, Microsoft Teams at 21%, and the intranet at 17%.

    This matters because it shows a clear distinction between preference and reality. Employees may say they like written information, and the channel data confirms that written, scalable formats still dominate everyday organisational communication. Email remains the backbone. Manager communication and team-based discussion are important, but secondary.

    The report also adds a useful caution about advocacy. Some low-usage channels, including LinkedIn, Instagram, Slack and TikTok, are associated with very high levels of employer advocacy among the people who use them. But the report sensibly argues that this probably reflects the fact that advocates are more likely to engage with their employer through those channels, rather than those channels causing advocacy. In other words, correlation here should not be mistaken for channel effectiveness.

    Audience differences are one of the most valuable parts of the report. On page 8, several patterns stand out:

    Public sector employees are more likely than private sector employees to rely on the intranet, 20% versus 15%, while private sector employees are more likely to rely on virtual and in-person town halls. Smaller organisations make heavier use of team meetings, WhatsApp and LinkedIn. For example, among employees in organisations with 500–999 people, 40% rely on team meetings, 22% on SMS or WhatsApp, and 15% on LinkedIn, compared with just 31%, 6% and 4% respectively in the largest organisations.

    Generational differences are especially sharp. Gen Z employees are much more likely than Baby Boomers to rely on SMS or WhatsApp, 19% versus 5%, and more likely to use LinkedIn and Instagram. Baby Boomers, by contrast, are more likely to use the intranet, 20% versus 10% for Gen Z. Millennials also show relatively high use of digital screens, LinkedIn and Instagram.

    Finally, part-time employees are more likely than full-time employees to rely on word of mouth, 30% versus 24%, and employees in global organisations are more likely to use company newsletters than those in UK-only organisations, 38% versus 30%. Together, these patterns reinforce the report’s strongest strategic point: channel strategy should be audience-led rather than based on one standard corporate mix.

    Overall, this is a useful, applied piece of original research. Its main value is not in dramatic headline shifts, but in showing where the practical frictions are: under-communication is more harmful than over-communication, employees still want written clarity, pay and career information remain underserved, and channel reliance varies enough by audience that a single-channel logic is unlikely to work well.

  • IC Index 2025 by Institute of Internal Communication

    IC Index 2025 by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The paper is an original quantitative research report on what drives strong internal communication experiences, with a particular focus on care, connection, leadership behaviour, listening, change communication and AI communication.

    It is based on an online survey of a representative quota sample of 4,939 UK workers aged 18–64, fielded between 21 March and 4 April 2025, and covers the UK only; the report also incorporates commentary from IoIC Fellows, so it combines survey research with expert interpretation.

    Length: 33 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/resource-report/ic-index-2025.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about what creates the best internal communication experiences?

    The report’s core argument is that the best internal communication experiences are driven less by channels and message volume, and more by human connection between employees and leaders. The strongest communication experience is not primarily explained by intranets, emails or strategy decks, but by whether leaders are visible, approachable, authentic, empathetic and willing to listen.

    That argument is visible most clearly in the section on what makes a “10/10” communication experience. Only 13% of employees give their organisation top marks for communication, which makes excellence rare rather than routine. Those employees are much more likely to say leaders understand the challenges employees face, that feedback is used to inform action, and that they hear regularly from senior leaders. They are also more likely to describe CEO communication as open, inspiring, clear, authentic and approachable.

    The report is therefore making a practical point to internal communicators: excellent internal communication is achieved when communication feels real. Leaders need to do more than explain strategy; they need to create a sense that they know employees, care about their experience and are prepared to engage in genuine two-way communication. That is the report’s central thesis.

    2. What evidence does the report provide that empathy, care and leader behaviour matter more than many organisations may assume?

    The report repeatedly shows that employee perceptions of empathy and care are closely tied to trust, value and advocacy. Just 51% of employees agree that leaders understand the challenges employees face, which means almost half of the workforce does not positively experience leadership empathy. That matters because employees who rate communication at 10/10 are overwhelmingly more likely to feel understood by leaders.

    The same pattern appears in relation to tone. Trust in the CEO or most senior leader is highest when communication is described as inspiring, authentic, caring, approachable and empathetic. It is far lower when leaders are seen as arrogant, unapproachable, boring, closed or indifferent. The report is effectively arguing that tone is not cosmetic; it is a trust-building variable.

    Care also matters strongly in moments of organisational strain. Only 56% say difficult people-affecting changes such as restructures or redundancies are communicated with care. Yet where employees do feel that such change is handled carefully, the uplift is dramatic: they are far more likely to feel valued and to recommend their employer as a great place to work. This suggests that care is not a soft add-on but a determinant of important organisational outcomes.

    The report also highlights a perception gap. Managers, especially senior leaders, are highly confident in their own communication skills, time and information, but employees are much less convinced on related measures such as openness, listening and follow-through. That implies many leaders may believe they are communicating effectively while employees experience something more distant or one-way.

    3. How does the report explain the importance of listening and acting on feedback?

    One of the report’s strongest conclusions is that listening only matters when employees can see evidence that their input changes something. The report distinguishes between organisations that merely invite feedback and those that “close the loop” by showing how feedback informs decisions and actions. This is one of the clearest findings in the whole study.

    Overall, 60% of employees say their organisation welcomes open and honest feedback, while only 53% say it is good at showing how colleague feedback is used. That gap is significant. It suggests many organisations are better at asking than responding. The report treats this as a live weakness, not a solved problem.

    The consequences are substantial. Among employees who say their organisation both welcomes feedback and shows how it is used, 90% would recommend their employer as a great place to work. By contrast, advocacy is far lower where organisations are seen as all talk and no action, selectively responsive, or completely disinterested. This is one of the most concrete business-case findings in the report: listening plus visible action strongly correlates with advocacy.

    The report also adds nuance about how leaders should listen. Large online Q&A sessions are the most common listening mechanism, but smaller and more personal formats such as small-group sessions, one-to-ones, reverse mentoring and discussions on internal social media are associated with stronger advocacy and stronger perceptions that feedback is welcomed. The implication is that scale does not automatically equal quality; smaller, more direct interactions often work better.

    4. What does the report reveal about organisational differences, especially the role of size, hierarchy and employee position?

    A striking pattern across the report is that smaller organisations consistently perform better than larger ones on a wide range of communication measures. Employees in organisations with 500–999 people are more positive than those in the largest organisations on leadership empathy, change communication, listening, feedback follow-through and AI clarity. The report treats organisation size as one of the most important contextual variables shaping communication quality.

    Large organisations appear to struggle particularly with emotional closeness and responsiveness. For example, perceptions that leaders understand employee challenges fall markedly as organisational size increases, and confidence that feedback informs decisions also drops sharply in the biggest organisations. Similarly, communication about difficult change is seen as less caring in larger organisations. This supports the report’s broader argument that scale makes human connection harder, though not impossible.

    Hierarchy matters too. Managers are much more likely than non-managers to believe leaders understand employee challenges, and senior leaders are the most positive group of all. The report reads this as a sign of disconnect between leadership perception and employee experience. That same pattern shows up in work identity: managers, particularly senior leaders, are much more likely than non-managers to say their job is an important part of their identity. This matters because leaders may overestimate how central the organisation is in employees’ lives, and therefore misjudge what communication employees find meaningful.

    The report also shows that clarity on strategy is strongest when it comes from the CEO or most senior leader. Employees who most commonly hear about business priorities from the CEO are the most likely to say strategy is clear. So while organisations often rely on multiple channels and local managers, the study suggests that senior leader communication remains uniquely important for strategic clarity.

    5. What does the report conclude about AI communication, and what are the wider implications for internal communicators?

    The report frames AI as a growing communication challenge defined by both opportunity and unease. Employees can see benefits in generative AI, especially for automating routine tasks, increasing productivity and saving time. But their worries are stronger and more emotionally charged: the biggest concern is loss of human jobs, followed by data privacy and security, lack of transparency, misinformation and unethical use.

    Against that backdrop, organisational clarity is weak. Only 41% say their employer has clearly communicated how generative AI is used responsibly in the organisation, and only 36% say expectations are clear on how they themselves are expected to use AI as part of their job. Again, smaller organisations perform much better than larger ones.

    The most important conclusion is that clarity changes comfort. Employees who say their organisation has clearly communicated responsible AI use are almost twice as likely to feel comfortable with AI being used to create written messages, images or video from their employer; in both cases, comfort rises to 70%. In other words, the discomfort is not only about the technology itself but also about organisational silence and ambiguity.

    The wider implication is that internal communicators should not treat AI as a purely technical issue owned elsewhere. The report strongly suggests that IC teams need to press for clear principles, practical guidance, manager support and honest explanation about where AI is used, why it is used and what safeguards exist. In the report’s logic, this is an extension of the same broader principle seen throughout the study: uncertainty damages trust, while clarity plus human-centred communication improves acceptance.

  • Future of IC Profession Survey by Institute of Internal Communication

    Future of IC Profession Survey by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The report examines how internal communication professionals view the current state and future direction of their profession, with a focus on strategic responsibilities, skills gaps, career progression, and the rise of “shadow communication” roles.

    It is original survey research based on an online questionnaire fielded in March 2025, with 303 respondents; the data is mainly UK-based, though it also includes participants from other parts of Europe, North America and a small number from other regions.

    The methodology is clearly stated, though the report does not specify sampling method beyond the online survey format.

    Length: 29 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/resource/new-ioic-report-reveals-evolving-role-of-internal-communication-professionals.html

    Core Insights

    1. How does the report argue that the internal communication profession is changing?

    The report’s core argument is that internal communication is moving beyond a mainly tactical delivery function and becoming a more strategic organisational role. It presents IC as increasingly tied to change, leadership, transformation, trust, resilience and organisational performance, rather than simply channels, content and campaigns. The introduction says IC is “increasingly seen as a strategic enabler of organisational success,” while the conclusion describes it as “fast becoming a critical driver of organisational performance.”

    At the same time, the report frames this change as double-edged. On the one hand, the profession is finally gaining the strategic access and recognition many practitioners have long wanted. On the other hand, that expansion of remit is happening faster than support, resourcing and development are catching up. The executive summary is explicit that many practitioners are now asked to contribute at a strategic level, but feel “ill-equipped, under-resourced and under-appreciated.”

    The report also places this shift in a wider context: AI and automation, digital transformation, remote and hybrid work, wellbeing pressures, economic uncertainty and social fragmentation are all reshaping the operating environment. In that setting, IC is no longer presented as a support service on the sidelines. It is shown as central to helping organisations maintain alignment, trust and human connection under pressure. That is the report’s main interpretive lens: IC matters more than before because organisations are harder to hold together than before.

    2. What evidence does the report provide that internal communication is becoming more strategic?

    The strongest evidence comes from the reported changes in responsibilities over the last year. The report says 56% of respondents saw an increase in change communication duties, 51% in digital transformation responsibilities, and 34% were asked to advise senior leadership more frequently. It also notes that one-third were being asked to do more influencing and advising, and that leaders increasingly see IC as a strategically important function.

    The charts on pages 9 and 10 reinforce that point visually and numerically. They show that the biggest growth areas are not classic production tasks but organisational change, digital transformation, data and analysis, leadership communication, listening, and senior-leader advising. Even where some traditional tasks remain important, the growth is disproportionately in areas associated with strategic judgement, insight and influence rather than message execution alone.

    Another useful signal is the report’s discussion of what is not changing much. Core activities such as communication planning, editing/writing/storytelling and communication strategy still dominate current roles, but practitioners now report managing an average of 15 different aspects of internal communication. That suggests the strategic layer is being added on top of an already broad tactical workload, rather than replacing it. In other words, the profession is not shedding delivery work; it is accumulating strategic work on top of it.

    This matters because the report is not simply saying IC professionals want to be strategic. It is saying organisations are already treating them more strategically. That is a major claim, and the evidence for it is fairly consistent across the report.

    3. What are the main pressures, capability gaps and morale problems affecting IC professionals?

    The report paints a picture of a profession under strain. The pressure starts with workload breadth: respondents report handling an average of 15 areas of responsibility, and the report repeatedly suggests that many are stretched too thinly to create the space for higher-value strategic work. The problem is therefore not only volume, but also role sprawl.

    The capability gap is another major theme. Only 30% of respondents in the introduction say they feel fully equipped with the necessary skills for their current roles, while later the skills section says only one in three believe they currently possess all the skills needed. The areas most often identified for development are strategic thinking, influencing, digital literacy, data literacy and change communication, with AI and digital proficiency especially prominent. The report clearly sees the future IC role as more insight-driven and technology-enabled than many professionals currently feel ready for.

    The morale findings make the picture more serious. Fewer than half say they feel happy, fulfilled or appreciated, while the report states that 80% express negative feelings about their work overall. On page 11, 51% say they feel stretched, 41% frustrated, and 37% stressed. The report interprets this not as ordinary job dissatisfaction but as a potential motivation crisis within the profession.

    The surrounding pressures help explain why. AI and automation are identified by 84% as the biggest emerging trend affecting the profession; wellbeing and burnout risk follow at 64%, and remote/hybrid work at 63%. Meanwhile, the main role challenges reported include rapid and continuous change, budget and resource constraints, the perceived value of internal communication, measurement/data, leadership buy-in, and communication noise. Together, these findings suggest that IC professionals are being asked to lead through uncertainty while also trying to justify their value, learn new tools, and absorb emotional labour.

    A particularly revealing tension in the report is that technological change is described as both promising and destabilising. Some respondents see AI as a way to reduce time spent on planning, analysis and writing so they can focus more on strategic and human work. But others worry it will increase expectations that they do more, faster, with fewer resources. So the technology story here is not techno-optimism; it is capacity anxiety.

    4. Why does career progression emerge as such a significant issue in the report?

    Career progression matters so much in the report because it acts as the point where ambition, recognition, skills and retention all collide. The introduction says 40% are uncertain about their career trajectory and around one in six intend to transition out of IC. Later sections expand this by showing that the biggest barrier to progression is the availability of suitable roles, cited by 64%, followed by confidence/imposter syndrome at 49% and work/life balance at 35%.

    The report also suggests that the issue is structural, not merely personal. Only around 39% feel there are clear opportunities for career prospects and progression within the IC profession, and only around four in ten feel they receive adequate training to keep pace with technological changes. It goes further by saying that IC careers are not well understood or adequately supported within many organisations. That means the profession is not just lacking openings; it is lacking clearly legible development pathways.

    This becomes even more important because the profession is clearly evolving. If the job is becoming more strategic, then career systems also need to evolve to reflect new specialisms and senior pathways. The report notes that many respondents want networking opportunities, career coaching, development courses and mentorship. It also highlights interest in deep specialism, not just upward promotion. That implies a profession that is maturing and differentiating, but whose career infrastructure has not fully matured with it.

    The report’s mention of the IoIC Profession Map is therefore significant. Awareness is high at 71%, but active usage is only around one-third, with just over half planning to use it. This suggests that the profession does have a development framework, but it is not yet embedded strongly enough in day-to-day career planning. So the report is implicitly arguing that clearer professional architecture is needed if the field wants to retain talent and convert strategic demand into sustainable careers.

    5. What does the rise of “shadow communication” imply for the future role and value of internal communication?

    The rise of shadow communication is one of the most strategically interesting findings in the whole report. It refers to communication activity increasingly being carried out by people outside the formal IC function. Almost two-thirds, 63%, report an increase in such activity, and the report identifies HR and operations as particularly active, followed by IT, leadership and team managers.

    The report’s view is nuanced. It acknowledges that decentralised communication can improve agility and relevance because people closer to the audience may communicate faster and more directly. But it is much more concerned with the downside: fragmentation, inconsistent messaging, misuse of channels, duplication of effort, confusion about credible information, and a weakening of internal communication’s strategic voice. In effect, shadow communication is presented as both a symptom of IC’s growing relevance and a threat to its coherence.

    This has a deeper implication for the profession’s future role. If communication work is spreading across the organisation, the IC function cannot define its value only as “the team that sends messages”. Its future value lies more in governance, coaching, partnership-building, standards, sense-making and strategic enablement. The report says internal communicators are in a prime position to coach others, enable them strategically, and preserve organisational voice and tone. That is a more distributed model of authority: less ownership of every output, more stewardship of the overall communication system.

    That is why the recommendations place so much emphasis on advocacy, clearer guidelines, stronger cross-functional relationships and support for colleagues outside IC. The report is effectively arguing that if shadow communication is now a fact of organisational life, then IC professionals must protect their relevance not by trying to monopolise communication, but by becoming the people who make organisation-wide communication more aligned, credible and effective. That is a subtle but important repositioning of the function.

  • IC Index 2024 – The Trust Issue by Institute of Internal Communication

    IC Index 2024 – The Trust Issue by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The report examines how internal communication shapes trust in UK workplaces, with a particular focus on leadership trust, strategy belief, change communication, AI, hybrid work and organisational stances on societal issues.

    It is a mixed-methods report: the core evidence is a representative quota survey of 4,000 UK workers aged 18–64 in organisations with 500+ employees across the UK, fielded 6–20 March 2024, supplemented by a practitioner survey of 220 IoIC members and six senior-leader interviews; the report is UK-wide and the methodology is clearly stated.

    Length: 29 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/resource/ic-index-2024-report-trust-issue.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the relationship between internal communication and trust?

    The central argument is that good internal communication is not a peripheral support function but a core condition for organisational trust. The report makes this case repeatedly: where employees rate internal communication as excellent, trust in leadership is far higher, engagement is stronger, and people are more likely to stay with their employer for longer. The report frames trust not as an abstract cultural nice-to-have, but as something communication actively builds, protects and, when mishandled, damages.

    The report’s headline message is that “good IC is integral to trust” and that this matters especially in a context of uncertainty, continuous change and rising expectations around authenticity and empathy. It argues that communication is the basis of trust in workplace relationships and then tests that claim empirically through the Trust Index and associated measures. The data show a 74-point difference in trust in senior leaders between employees who rate communication as excellent and those who rate it as poor, which is an enormous gap and one of the strongest pieces of evidence in the report.

    The report also suggests that communication matters most where personal contact is weaker. Trust in direct managers is higher than trust in senior leaders or the CEO, and the authors infer that communication becomes even more important as the distance between employees and leaders increases. In other words, for senior leadership, communication is not just a channel for trust; it is often the main mechanism through which trust is experienced at all.

    So the report’s big idea is clear: internal communication is a strategic trust infrastructure. It influences whether employees think leaders are competent, honest, empathetic and acting in the right interests.

    2. Which specific factors most strongly build trust in leaders and organisations?

    The strongest trust-building factor across leadership levels is open and honest communication. On the report’s trust model, belief that employer communications are open and honest is the top driver of trust in both the CEO and the wider leadership team, and it also remains one of the top drivers for trust in direct managers. Alongside this, empathy matters greatly: employees need to feel that leaders understand the challenges they face.

    For senior leaders and CEOs specifically, trust also depends heavily on strategic credibility. Employees must believe that the organisation’s strategy is the right one for success. The report goes further by identifying what most strengthens that belief: not just knowing what the strategy is, and not just hearing about progress, but understanding how one can personally contribute to achieving it. When employees know their own contribution, belief in the strategy jumps by 35 points compared with people who only know the strategy and its progress. That is one of the report’s most important causal clues.

    For direct managers, slightly different drivers come to the fore. The most important is behavioural consistency: managers must act in line with the organisation’s values and behaviours. Frequency of communication also matters here; employees need to hear from their direct manager at least every few days to weekly. So trust in managers is built less by abstract strategy and more by visible, consistent, everyday conduct.

    The report also shows that feeling valued and believing the organisation operates in employees’ best interests are powerful trust builders. In fact, employees who believe the organisation acts in employees’ best interests have the highest Trust Index scores. This means trust is not only about message quality. It is also about whether communication aligns with lived organisational reality. A polished message cannot compensate for a widespread belief that the organisation mainly serves profits, leadership interests or shareholder priorities.

    3. What does the report reveal about the main trust weaknesses inside organisations today?

    The report’s most striking weakness is that trust becomes more fragile the higher up the hierarchy you go. Overall trust is fairly positive, with a combined Trust Index of 63%, but this masks a steep gradient: 75% trust their direct manager, 58% trust the leadership team, and only 55% trust the CEO or most senior leader. Many employees are not openly negative so much as uncertain, especially about senior leaders. That suggests distance, inconsistency and lack of direct connection are key problems.

    A second major weakness is perceived organisational self-interest. Only 43% believe their organisation operates in employees’ best interests, while larger proportions think organisations prioritise shareholders, profits and customers. This matters because belief that the organisation acts in employees’ interests is tightly linked to trust. The report also shows that this belief declines as organisation size increases, suggesting scale makes it harder to sustain a credible sense of mutuality between employer and employee.

    A third weakness is the existence of distinct trust segments, including a sizeable cynical bloc. The report identifies four broad trust types: Total Trusters, Proof Seekers, Senior Sceptics and All-round Cynics. The last group makes up 22% of employees and is characterised by very low trust in managers, leaders and the organisation as a whole. This is important because it shows that mistrust is not evenly distributed. Some employees need more evidence, some mainly distrust senior leadership, and some are alienated across the board. That means communicators cannot assume a single audience psychology.

    The report also points to a persistent communication inequality between digitally connected and non-connected workers. Employees who spend most of their time away from computers report lower satisfaction with communication and lower trust, especially in the CEO. This suggests that organisations still struggle to create equitable communication environments across frontline, operational and desk-based roles.

    4. How does communication affect employees’ experience of change, AI and hybrid working?

    The report treats these as live stress-tests of trust, and in each case communication emerges as decisive.

    On change, the findings are particularly strong. Four in ten employees say their organisation has restructured in the last year, and many have experienced redundancies, negative headlines, business transformation or leadership change. Yet the report argues that low trust is not an inevitable consequence of change itself. Rather, it is a consequence of change in organisations where communication is poor. Among employees who have been through a restructure, those who rate communication as excellent are dramatically more likely to believe communications are open and honest and to trust senior leaders and the CEO. The gaps between excellent and poor communication are above 50 points on these measures.

    Employees are also very clear on what better change communication looks like. They want clarity on the reasons behind change, honesty about the impact, and more listening. They also want earlier communication and more detail on the plan. The report’s underlying point is that people do not necessarily reject change itself; they reject opacity, spin and one-way communication.

    On AI, the report finds a trust deficit, especially for communications that are supposed to feel human. Around one third would not trust at all a CEO message developed with AI, and similarly high scepticism exists for manager messages and AI-created visual content featuring people. Trust is somewhat higher for impersonal content such as newsletters, intranet articles or policy documents. The report’s interpretation is that AI is less acceptable when it appears to simulate human presence or voice. It also notes that employees with higher overall trust in their organisation are more comfortable with AI use, implying that AI adoption depends on prior trust, not just technical capability.

    On hybrid work and return-to-office mandates, the findings are especially damaging. More than two in three employees do not believe the reason their employer gave for requiring office attendance. Employers most often cited collaboration, but many employees believe the real motive was oversight of working hours. The report presents this as a credibility gap: it is not simply that employees dislike the policy, but that they distrust the communicated rationale. That makes return-to-office communication a textbook example of how message–motive misalignment corrodes trust.

    5. What are the practical implications for internal communicators and organisational leaders?

    The report’s practical implication is that internal communication should be treated as a strategic lever for trust, retention and organisational performance, not as a downstream distribution function. The evidence gives communicators a stronger business case: excellent communication correlates with higher engagement, lower turnover intentions, stronger trust and greater belief in strategy. That means communication teams can argue for investment not only on cultural grounds, but on operational and performance grounds too.

    For communicators, one implication is to focus less on message volume and more on message credibility. The report repeatedly rewards openness, honesty, empathy, clarity and visible listening. It suggests that communication works best when it helps employees understand not only what is happening, but why, what it means for them, and how their voice is being heard. This is especially important during change, where candour matters more than polish.

    A second implication is that managers matter enormously as communication intermediaries. Employees value managers who listen, set clear objectives and offer personal support, yet only a minority of managers have been trained in key communication capabilities, especially change communication and support during personal issues. The report therefore points towards a practical priority: equip managers better, because they are central to trust formation, especially for less digitally connected workers.

    A third implication is that leaders must communicate strategy in a participatory rather than merely explanatory way. Employees need to know how they personally contribute. This moves communication beyond broadcasting strategy slides and into helping people connect their work to organisational direction. That is where belief in strategy becomes materially stronger.

    A fourth implication is that communicators and leaders need tighter alignment with HR and external communication. The report says this explicitly in relation to change and societal issues. Questions about layoffs, hybrid work, climate stance or public values cannot be handled well in silos. Employees interpret silence, inconsistency and vague positioning as signals in themselves.

    Finally, the report implies a more sober lesson: trust cannot be built by communication alone if the organisation’s conduct contradicts the message. Since trust is strongly tied to whether employees think the organisation acts in their interests, lives its values and genuinely listens, communication succeeds best when it reflects reality rather than attempts to mask it. In that sense, the report is not just a defence of internal communication. It is also a challenge to leadership behaviour.

  • IC Index 2023 by Institute of Internal Communication

    IC Index 2023 by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The paper is a piece of original survey research about what employees in the UK want and need from internal communication, produced by Ipsos Karian and Box for the Institute of Internal Communication.

    The methodology is clearly stated: a stratified survey of 3,000 UK workers, fielded from 6–20 March 2023, covering employees in organisations with more than 500 staff across the UK; the report also says the question set was developed with an expert working group of IC practitioners.

    Length: 35 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/resource/ic-index-report-2023.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report about the value of internal communication?

    The report’s main argument is that internal communication is not a soft or secondary function but a business-critical one that materially improves the employee experience and broader organisational health. The report explicitly says that employees in organisations with a dedicated internal communication team are more likely to rate communication as excellent, more engaged, less likely to plan to leave, and more likely to trust CEO communications. In other words, the presence of an IC function is associated not just with better messaging, but with stronger trust, engagement and retention indicators.

    That argument is strengthened by one of the report’s clearest contrasts: 69% of workers in organisations with an IC function rate communications as excellent, compared with 37% where there is no such team. Engagement is reported as 59% versus 43%, intention to leave within two years as 29% versus 42%, and trust in CEO communications as 60% versus 46%. These are not minor differences. The report uses them to make the case that IC teams “make a positive difference” and should be seen as a fundamental organisational requirement rather than a nice-to-have.

    A second layer of the argument is that internal communication creates value when it helps employees feel informed, connected, respected and heard. The report links good communication to advocacy, belonging and belief in strategy. So the underlying claim is not merely that IC improves information flow, but that it shapes how people experience work itself.

    2. What does the report show employees most want to hear about, and where are organisations under-communicating?

    The strongest demand is for communication about pay and benefits, with 44% saying they receive too little information on this topic. But the report is especially insistent that strategy and career development matter because under-communication here has a particularly negative effect on engagement. Strategy and direction show a net demand score of 21, while career and personal development opportunities score 23. The report explicitly flags strategy and development as topics that need a lot more attention in communication planning.

    This matters because the report finds that clarity on strategic issues is still weak for a sizeable minority. Only 57% say their employer has been clear on strategy and business priorities, while 63% say they believe the strategy is the right one for success. That gap is one of the report’s most interesting findings: belief slightly exceeds understanding. The authors treat that as a warning sign, suggesting some employees may support the strategy in general terms without truly understanding it in practical terms.

    The report turns this into a segmentation model. It says 45% of UK workers are “ambassadors”, meaning they both understand and believe in the strategy, while 25% are “passengers”, meaning they neither understand nor believe in it. Another 17% are “loose cannons”, who believe but do not understand, and 12% are “bystanders”, who understand but do not believe. This is one of the report’s most useful conceptual contributions, because it shows that strategic communication is not simply about broadcasting more information; it is about moving people from confusion or detachment into informed belief.

    3. What patterns does the report identify around channels, attention and communication preferences?

    A major finding is that employee attention is scarce. Nearly seven in ten workers spend 15 minutes or less per day reading or viewing employer updates, and a quarter spend hardly any time at all. The report therefore argues that internal communication operates in a very constrained attention environment. Employees “snack rather than binge”, often consuming updates during or between meetings rather than in long, focused periods.

    In terms of format, the report finds that written communication still dominates. More than half of respondents say they would prefer to read information about employer priorities and plans, compared with 20% who prefer to talk about it and only 12% each who prefer audio or visual formats. Email remains both the most relied-on and the most preferred channel overall. 59% rely on emails for general news and updates, and 57% say they prefer them. Team meetings, 1-to-1s with line managers, and newsletters also remain important.

    At the same time, the report complicates any simple “email still wins” conclusion. It identifies two communication “tribes”: 82% are “traditionalists”, relying mainly on channels such as email, line-manager 1-to-1s and team meetings; 18% are “non-conformists”, who are more likely to rely on channels such as Instagram, LinkedIn and enterprise social media. These non-conformists are more common among younger workers, senior leaders and employees in somewhat smaller organisations. So the report’s broader message is that the default should still be clarity and utility through familiar channels, but channel strategy needs to evolve around audience differences rather than novelty for its own sake.

    4. What does the report suggest about leadership and manager communication?

    One of the clearest conclusions is that leadership visibility matters, but different leaders should communicate in different ways. Employees generally prefer to hear from CEOs by email, whereas they have stronger demand for face-to-face interaction with departmental leaders or senior managers. The report describes this as “horses for courses”: employees distinguish between CEOs and nearer leaders, and their channel preferences reflect that difference in proximity.

    The report also shows that frequency matters. Engagement is highest when CEOs communicate every few days and falls steadily as communication becomes less frequent, dropping from 69% engagement at the highest frequency to 30% when CEOs communicate rarely, if at all. The authors are careful not to imply that CEOs should simply send more emails; rather, they argue for a consistent rhythm of meaningful leadership visibility across channels.

    Direct managers emerge as the most trusted messengers. 65% trust communications from their direct manager, compared with 54% for CEO communications. That trust gap widens in larger organisations. Employees also say they want more from managers, especially updates on team priorities and goals, information on how the organisation is performing, and explanations of how team work supports wider priorities. But there is a constraint: one in three line managers do not feel equipped to lead conversations with their teams about what is happening across the organisation. Managers want more and clearer information on what to communicate, and around a quarter say they want more training. The report therefore makes a double argument: managers matter enormously, but they cannot be expected to carry the communication load without structured support.

    5. What does the report conclude about listening, feedback and the overall implications for internal communication strategy?

    The report is quite critical here. It says that around half of UK workers do not feel listened to by their employer. While 53% say their organisation welcomes open and honest feedback, only 45% say their organisation is good at showing how feedback is used to inform decisions and actions. These scores are even lower in the largest organisations. The implication is that many organisations may have listening mechanisms in place, but employees do not experience those mechanisms as meaningful.

    Importantly, the report shows that listening is strongly associated with better outcomes. Where employees say their organisation both welcomes feedback and acts on it, advocacy and engagement rise sharply. The report also argues that annual staff surveys on their own are not enough. The best balance of effort and results comes from combining an annual survey with at least two other listening channels, especially pulse surveys and two-way manager conversations. That is a notable finding because it shifts the emphasis from periodic measurement to ongoing dialogue.

    The broader implication is that effective internal communication strategy should rest on four pillars. First, clearer communication about strategy, priorities and performance. Second, stronger leadership visibility, with the right leaders using the right channels. Third, better-enabled line managers, since they are both trusted and central to sense-making. Fourth, a more credible listening system that closes the loop visibly. Taken together, the report’s perspective is practical rather than theoretical: internal communication works best when it helps people understand where the organisation is going, trust the people leading it, connect that direction to their own team reality, and see that their voice has consequences.