Tag: leadership

  • 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.

  • Leading at the Intersections 2026 by Weber Shandwick

    Leading at the Intersections 2026 by Weber Shandwick

    About the paper

    Weber Shandwick’s Leading at the Intersections 2026 is a short corporate affairs trends report about the strategic shifts reshaping modern corporate affairs, especially in the U.S. and for U.S. multinationals.

    It is primarily an expert commentary / advisory perspective, with one referenced survey of Fortune 1000 communications and corporate affairs executives conducted by Weber Advisory and Gravity Research; the sample size, fieldwork method and timeframe are not clearly specified in the report.

    The geographic focus is mainly the United States, with some attention to global stakeholder expectations around U.S. companies abroad.

    Length: 13 pages

    More information / download:
    https://webershandwick.com/news/the-five-shifts-redefining-the-c-suite-agenda-in-2026

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report?

    The report argues that corporate affairs leaders are now operating “at the intersections” of several forms of disruption:

    • geoeconomic instability
    • polarised U.S. politics
    • reputational volatility
    • AI-driven transformation
    • workforce anxiety
    • cultural fragmentation
    • and changing expectations around responsible business.

    Its core message is that corporate affairs can no longer be treated as a reactive communications function. The authors frame it as a strategic leadership capability that must help organisations make sense of complexity, protect licence to operate, create stakeholder value and support business resilience.

    The report’s strongest underlying assumption is that the operating environment has become too volatile for narrow, bottom-line-only communication. Companies need to understand how business value, stakeholder expectations, culture, politics, technology and social impact now interact. In that sense, the report positions modern corporate affairs as a form of integrated strategic intelligence.

    2. How does the report suggest companies should think about value in a time of disruption?

    The report warns that in uncertain times, leaders may be tempted to focus narrowly on economic value and the bottom line. Weber Shandwick argues the opposite: disruption is precisely when companies need to broaden their understanding of value.

    It identifies several value dimensions beyond financial performance:

    • functional value
    • emotional value
    • and societal value.

    The point is not that profit becomes irrelevant, but that companies’ licence to operate depends on more than profit. Trust, relevance, purpose, stakeholder relationships and perceived contribution to society all become part of the value equation.

    The report links this especially to the 2026 U.S. midterm environment. Affordability, cost of living, inequality, trade, healthcare, housing, immigration and AI regulation are all described as issues shaping public expectations. In this environment, companies face reputational risk if they are seen as detached from ordinary stakeholder concerns.

    One particularly useful insight is that “corporate speak” is no longer neutral. The report frames over-polished, generic language as a credibility risk. Companies are advised to communicate with more emotion, empathy and candour — not as a stylistic preference, but as a trust-building necessity.

    3. What new expectations does the report identify for corporate diplomacy?

    The report argues that U.S. multinationals will be pushed into more explicit forms of corporate diplomacy in 2026. The key issue is that foreign stakeholders may increasingly expect U.S. companies to show that they are not simply proxies for U.S. foreign policy.

    This is an important distinction. The report suggests that U.S. brands have, so far, retained some independence from declining perceptions of U.S. political leadership. But that separation may become harder to maintain if U.S. government actions become more confrontational or less aligned with international norms.

    Three expectations stand out. First, companies must demonstrate local accountability: where decisions are made, how local interests are protected and which commitments endure despite political shifts in Washington. Second, they need deeper local relationships across government, business and civil society, because these relationships become a form of reputational defence. Third, executives may need to speak more visibly and carefully abroad, because silence can increasingly be interpreted as alignment.

    The report also connects this to B2G strategy in an “America First” context. For tech companies in particular, it recommends local storytelling around outcomes governments already care about: workforce upskilling, manufacturing, energy resilience, defence readiness and public-sector efficiency.

    4. Why does the report treat cultural intelligence as a leadership capability?

    The report presents cultural intelligence as a core leadership currency because companies are increasingly pressured to respond to cultural flashpoints in real time. Digital discourse, ideological polarisation, influencer dynamics, bots and platform algorithms all make it harder for organisations to remain silent or generic without others filling in the blanks.

    The report’s argument is not that companies should comment on everything. Rather, leaders need to know their organisation’s “true north” and make sharper decisions about when to engage, how to engage and when not to engage. Cultural intelligence is therefore both an external sensing capability and an internal decision-making discipline.

    The report highlights three ways to build cultural adaptation fluency. Companies should internalise organisational values so they function as an operating system rather than decorative statements. They should dig deeper into the “why” behind cultural signals, not just track what is trending. And they should make scenario planning a routine practice, using AI and other tools to anticipate how cultural communities and influencers may react.

    A useful nuance here is the distinction between audiences and algorithms. The report notes that meaning still comes from human belief, but reach is shaped by platforms. Leaders therefore need to design communication for both human interpretation and algorithmic circulation.

    5. What implications does the report draw for responsible business and AI transformation?

    The report argues that responsible business is not disappearing, even if the language around ESG, sustainability or social impact changes for political and practical reasons. The fundamentals remain important because companies still need to balance material business pressures, stakeholder tensions and reputational risk.

    Three responsible business challenges are highlighted.

    1. First, companies must define the future of human work as AI integration accelerates. Stakeholders will expect human-first integration plans, workforce readiness and credible opportunities for future talent.
    2. Second, the report argues that climate action is becoming more fragmented because coordinated multilateral action is weakening, while “China First” green tech and “America First” energy politics reshape the context.
    3. Third, companies must separate values from “vibes”: in a fragmented information environment, responsibility strategies must be anchored in the business model rather than broad, consensus-seeking purpose claims.

    On AI, the report’s position is pragmatic rather than utopian. AI transformation is treated as unavoidable, but the authors warn against simplistic winner/loser narratives. Companies need a transformation narrative that proves the business case while addressing the human side of change.

    The report identifies three AI-related communication challenges:

    • real-time stakeholder insight
    • machine readability intelligence
    • and human-centred generative creativity.

    The most distinctive point is “machine readability”: companies now need to understand how they appear in AI search and AI-generated summaries, which sources shape those outputs, and how to correct misinformation or poor representations.

    The final message is: be AI-enabled, not AI-enthralled. For B2B marketing in particular, AI should not replace the entire martech stack or become a reason to defund other vital technologies. The stronger argument is for deliberate integration: clear use cases, regulatory awareness, privacy safeguards and attention to workforce impact.

  • License to Lead by FleishmanHillard

    License to Lead by FleishmanHillard

    About the paper

    The report examines what FleishmanHillard calls a company’s “License to Lead” — the stakeholder permission leaders need to change course, move quickly and manage disruption without losing legitimacy.

    It is based on original quantitative research: an online survey conducted by TRUE Global Intelligence from 15 December 2025 to 4 January 2026 among 5,550 respondents, comprising 4,000 engaged consumers, 1,400 executives and 150 policy stakeholders.

    The data is global in scope, covering 15 markets across four regions: North America (US, Canada), Latin America (Brazil, Mexico), Europe & Middle East (UK, France, Germany, Brussels, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, UAE, South Africa) and Asia Pacific (China, Japan, South Korea).

    Length: 42 pages

    More information / download:
    https://fleishmanhillard.com/2026/01/license-to-lead-playbook/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about leadership in an age of permanent uncertainty?

    The core argument is that uncertainty is no longer a temporary disruption but the standing condition of leadership. On pages 2–3, the report says leaders now have to make high-stakes decisions faster, with less certainty, under greater scrutiny, and in environments shaped by political volatility, geopolitical change, technological acceleration, media fragmentation and rising stakeholder expectations.

    Its main claim is that the real constraint on execution is no longer strategy quality alone. It is whether stakeholders are willing to let leaders act, especially when strategic shifts involve disruption, short-term pain or visible course correction. FleishmanHillard calls this permission structure “License to Lead”. On page 3, the report explicitly argues that organisations stall not because they lack strategic brilliance, but because stakeholders do not have enough confidence that the new direction is justified and worth following.

    That framing is important because it shifts the leadership discussion from planning to permission. In this report’s logic, reputation is not a nice-to-have or a downstream outcome of success. It is a precondition for making strategy executable when conditions change.

    2. What does the global survey reveal about stakeholder expectations of business leaders today?

    The report shows that stakeholders increasingly expect leaders to be adaptable, clear, accountable and visibly fair. On page 5, 84% of engaged consumers and 82% of policy stakeholders say the current business environment is more unpredictable and disruptive than it was three years ago. Among engaged consumers, the top leadership quality for the next decade is the ability to adapt quickly to change, cited by 51%. Clear and simple communication comes next at 40%, followed by the ability to communicate effectively about changes and pivots at 37%.

    Page 6 deepens this picture. Around half of engaged consumers say their expectations of companies have risen when it comes to acting with customers in mind (52%), doing the right thing (50%) and taking a balanced stakeholder approach (47%). More than 90% say several actions are key to confidence in leadership: clear communication of strategy, message consistency, transparency about difficult decisions, genuine listening, and accountability when things go wrong. The highest figure is 95% for taking accountability when things go wrong.

    The report also shows that long-term loyalty is not driven by lofty rhetoric alone. On page 6, the top three loyalty drivers are the product itself (42%), the company’s mission and purpose (38%), and how the company treats employees and stakeholders (38%). That suggests stakeholders still value purpose, but they place it alongside product performance and treatment of people, not above them.

    3. Where is the biggest trust gap between leaders and stakeholders?

    The sharpest gap is between how executives assess corporate leadership and how engaged consumers assess it. Page 7 is the clearest evidence. While 49% of executives are very optimistic that large companies will address major challenges over the next 10 years, only 20% of engaged consumers say the same. Likewise, 51% of executives say they have “a lot” of confidence that leaders of large companies will act in the best interests of society, compared with just 19% of engaged consumers. On preparedness, 44% of executives believe large companies are very prepared to lead effectively during future disruption, versus only 15% of engaged consumers.

    The report reinforces this perception gap on page 9 and in the appendix tables on pages 37–38. Engaged consumers place extremely high importance on integrity and honesty, accountability, transparency and consistency, but far fewer believe company leaders demonstrate those qualities often. For example, 76% of engaged consumers say integrity and honesty are very important, yet only 23% say leaders often demonstrate them. Accountability shows a similar gap: 74% say it is very important, but only 22% say leaders often demonstrate it.

    This matters because the report is not merely saying trust is low. It is saying business leaders systematically overestimate how much trust and legitimacy they currently enjoy. That misreading, in the report’s view, is itself a strategic risk.

    4. What are the practical consequences when companies lose this “License to Lead”?

    The report argues that the consequences are commercial and operational, not just reputational. Page 8 is especially direct: 98% of engaged consumers say they are paying attention to corporate follow-through, and 48% say inconsistent or conflicting messages from leadership greatly decrease their confidence in the company. A further 44% say such inconsistency somewhat decreases confidence, meaning only a tiny minority are unaffected.

    The behavioural consequences are significant. In the past 12 months, after losing confidence in a company, 58% of engaged consumers say they stopped buying from it or significantly reduced spending, 50% switched to a competitor, and 40% privately advised friends or family against the company. Those figures appear both in the key findings and in the appendix table on page 35.

    The report’s broader argument is that poor alignment and weak explanation create friction that slows execution. Pages 10–11, in the “License to Lead Maturity Curve”, describe how low-maturity organisations become reactive, then merely stabilising, because stakeholders interpret abrupt pivots as instability rather than disciplined adaptation. The report’s implication is that execution failures are often self-inflicted: leaders do not sufficiently prepare stakeholders before and during change, so even necessary moves become harder to carry through.

    5. What leadership model does the report propose as the answer, and what are its wider implications?

    The proposed answer is a leadership and corporate affairs model built around five conditions and an integrated operating system. On pages 12–17, the “new leadership playbook” identifies five practices: simplification as an antidote to complexity, ruthless leadership alignment, campaigning the strategy, owning the “why”, and stakeholder relevance without shortcuts. These are presented not as communications tactics in isolation, but as interdependent conditions for sustaining permission to act.

    The logic is consistent across these sections. Simplification means reducing complexity into a repeatable direction that stakeholders can understand. Alignment means leaders must resolve disagreements privately and present a unified public narrative. Campaigning the strategy means treating strategy as an ongoing effort rather than a one-off announcement. Owning the “why” means showing the logic, trade-offs and changed assumptions behind a pivot rather than presenting it as an unexplained verdict. Stakeholder relevance means proving fairness through operational decisions, not just values statements.

    Pages 18–24 then elevate corporate affairs into an “operating system” built on three capabilities: insight, influence and adaptability. The report argues that insight helps leaders distinguish real external signals from noise; influence turns reputation into an active enabler of execution; and adaptability helps organisations maintain legitimacy across repeated cycles of change.

    The wider implication, especially on pages 23–25, is that corporate affairs should no longer be treated as peripheral or reactive. The report claims that execution velocity is now partly a reputational capability. Strategy will keep changing; reputation must be built before it is needed; and corporate affairs now determines whether leaders can move quickly without losing stakeholder backing. In that sense, the report is not just about communications. It is an argument for repositioning corporate affairs as core leadership infrastructure in conditions of permanent volatility.