About the paper
The report examines how leadership communication is changing under sustained pressure from pandemic disruption, employee volatility, social issues and economic uncertainty.
It is a mixed-methods report drawing on an online survey of 100+ C-suite executives and company owners, an online survey of more than 1,000 employed adults, and nearly 20 one-to-one depth interviews with C-suite leaders; the geographic scope is not clearly specified in the report.
Length: 58 pages
More information / download:
https://padillaco.com/post/the-changing-face-of-leadership-communications
Core Insights
1. Why does the report argue that leadership communication has changed so sharply?
The report’s core argument is that the context around leadership has become far more unstable, emotionally charged and publicly scrutinised than the environment many senior leaders came up in. It describes the past “2½ years of chaos” as shaped by COVID-19, polarised politics, unsettled employees, gun violence and other social issues, geopolitical uncertainty, supply chain shortages, whiplash economics, racial reckoning and stagflation. That combination has made it “not an easy time to be in the C-suite”.
The report also shows that these pressures are not abstract. In the survey, the top reported leadership challenges were coping with economic uncertainty at 42%, rising inflation at 33%, public health incidents at 32%, supporting employee well-being at 29%, and attracting and retaining talent at 27%. That puts emotional, operational and reputational strain into the same leadership frame.
In other words, the change in communication is presented as a response to a changed operating environment. Leaders are no longer communicating in relatively stable conditions; they are communicating amid overlapping crises, faster feedback loops and heightened stakeholder expectations. That is why the report treats communication change as structural rather than cosmetic.
2. How does the report characterise what leaders are feeling, and why does that matter?
The report’s clearest single-word diagnosis is that leaders feel “conflicted”. That matters because it frames leadership communication not as a polished top-down exercise, but as something shaped by genuine internal tension.
That tension shows up repeatedly in the interview material. Leaders describe feeling helpless during COVID, uncertain about what the next day would bring, and torn between different employee needs: flexibility versus certainty, empathy versus business discipline, transparency versus reassurance. The report also argues that many leaders were rewarded earlier in their careers for confidence, infallibility, competitiveness and prioritising work over personal life, but are now being asked to lead in a very different climate.
This matters because the report sees conflict not as weakness, but as the defining emotional condition of contemporary leadership. The better leaders recognise that conflict, rather than pretending it does not exist. That becomes the basis for a more adaptive communication style: less rigid certainty, more judgement, and more conscious balancing of competing demands.
3. Which leadership qualities does the report say have become more important, and what does that reveal about the new leadership model?
The report shows that credibility and authenticity top the list of qualities ranked “extremely important” for effective employee communication, at 74% and 73% respectively. Confidence follows at 66%, then ethics at 65% and transparency at 63%. Empathy sits at 52%, humility at 51%, while vulnerability and stoicism are both much lower at 26%.
But the more revealing finding is the change over time. The qualities seen as more important than two years ago are led by social issue advocacy at 80%, empathy at 76%, flexibility at 73%, vulnerability at 70% and a growth mindset at 68%. That suggests the leadership model is shifting away from simple command-and-control confidence towards a more complex mix of moral positioning, emotional intelligence and adaptability.
The report does not argue that traditional strengths disappear. Confidence, credibility and certainty still matter. Instead, it suggests leaders are having to combine older expectations of competence with newer demands for candour, empathy and social awareness. That is why the report repeatedly presents today’s leadership as a balancing act rather than a clean replacement of one model by another.
4. What communication dilemmas are leaders now trying to manage in practice?
The report identifies several recurring dilemmas. One is the challenge of creating a “change comfortable” culture. Leaders describe shorter planning cycles, the need to keep returning to the “why”, and a growing focus on resilience, interconnections and comfort with ambiguity. Long-term direction still matters, but detailed long-range plans are presented as far less reliable than before.
A second dilemma is transparency. The report explicitly labels this the “transparency dilemma”, framing competency and confidence against transparency and candour as potentially conflicting leadership attributes. Interviewees say they are getting more comfortable saying “I don’t know”, but not stopping there; they must acknowledge uncertainty without undermining reassurance.
A third dilemma concerns humanity. At company level, that means expanded benefits, flexible work, culture-building and taking stands on social issues. At leader level, it means more empathy, more visible personal openness, more kindness and more acknowledgement of blind spots. Yet even here the report stresses boundaries: leaders may need to show that they have feelings without fully exposing those feelings.
Finally, there is the dilemma of criticism. Because leaders are listening more, they are hearing more dissent from employees, customers, investors and communities. The report argues that criticism is now a given, not an exception. Negative feedback no longer automatically signals a bad decision; it is part of the new communications environment.
5. What are the report’s main implications for communication advisers and teams?
The report’s practical conclusion is that communicators need to evolve from message crafters into strategic advisers. It contrasts old requests such as “Go say this for me” or “How do I say this?” with broader questions such as “What are the consequences of what I say and do?” and “What should I do?” That signals a move from tactical execution to leadership counsel.
According to the report, today’s strategic communications adviser must be in tune with the complexities of the business, highly attentive to stakeholder groups and subgroups, able to think about the message, the messenger and the methods, and capable of listening to and interpreting feedback.
The broader implication is that communicators are no longer just helping leaders express decisions. They are helping leaders navigate ambiguity, stakeholder conflict, social expectations and organisational change. The report ends by saying that strategic communications professionals have “never been more essential as advisors and transformers”. That is the document’s clearest statement of purpose: it is making the case for a bigger, more embedded and more strategic role for communication counsel.