When Shel and I recorded the October monthly edition of our For Immediate Release podcast, episode 533, last weekend, we had six stories to discuss. They ranged from artificial intelligence and public trust to employee communication, digital privacy and a local council in Northern Ireland returning to print.
At first glance, quite a mixed collection.
But looking back over our 85-minute conversation, it's clear that beneath these different subjects ran a common thread: the gap between what organisations communicate, what people understand, and what they actually experience.
It's hardly a new challenge for communicators. Yet as technology changes how we work, share information and engage with one another, that gap seems to be taking on some interesting new dimensions.
Six stories, different perspectives
Are leaders and employees experiencing the same AI revolution?
That's the question raised by Wharton's 2026 AI Adoption Report, the episode's feature story, which reveals substantial differences between how managers and employees perceive AI adoption in their organisations.
For example, 78% of managers surveyed believe employees receive adequate AI training. Only 56% of entry- and mid-level employees agree. Similar differences emerge around leadership's AI vision and how well organisations are managing change.
It's a familiar problem in a new setting. Leaders may believe they've explained a strategy and provided the necessary support, while employees describe a rather different reality. Communicating something doesn't necessarily mean it's been understood, accepted or experienced as intended.
Can you persuade people to trust AI?
Research from FGS Global presents another interesting contradiction. AI adoption is widespread, yet public sentiment remains surprisingly sceptical. When people were presented with the technology's potential benefits, many reported becoming more positive about it.
People have legitimate concerns about safety, accountability and the behaviour of technology companies. Explaining benefits matters, but organisations also need to demonstrate that they're worthy of trust. Communication alone cannot compensate for behaviour that undermines confidence.
Microsoft is encouraging employees to speak for themselves.
The company is rethinking its communication strategy, encouraging employees and executives to share their own stories publicly, guided by common principles rather than tightly controlled corporate messaging.
It's an approach with a familiar history. Shel and I recalled the pioneering corporate blogging initiatives at Microsoft, IBM and Dell more than 20 years ago.
Much has changed since then, particularly the scale and speed of social media and the arrival of generative AI. But the fundamental questions remain. How do organisations encourage authentic employee voices while providing appropriate guidance, training and safeguards? And can they genuinely accept the loss of control that comes with allowing people to speak in their own words?
Does locking a ChatGPT conversation make it private?
OpenAI's new Locked chats feature lets users protect individual conversations with a PIN. Useful, certainly, but the name could create expectations that go beyond what the feature actually does.
That distinction matters, particularly as employees increasingly use AI assistants for workplace conversations. Are organisations explaining what these tools can and cannot protect? And do employees understand the consequences of sharing sensitive information?
It's a reminder that product design, naming and communication all shape people's expectations, sometimes in ways that don't reflect the underlying reality.
What happens when AI reads your internal communication before employees do?
Another story explored research suggesting that employees increasingly use AI tools to summarise workplace announcements, leadership messages and other internal communication.
That's a significant development. Communicators may carefully craft messages, considering language, nuance and tone, only for employees to encounter an AI-generated summary instead.
And summaries inevitably leave things out. Important qualifications, context and emotional meaning can disappear along the way.
The challenge isn't simply delivering a message. It's ensuring that its meaning survives the journey.
And finally, a return to print.
Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council in Northern Ireland is abandoning its poorly read residents' digital newsletter and trialling a printed magazine delivered to 60,000 households.
I rather like the idea of print making a comeback. But the interesting question is why the digital publication attracted so little attention in the first place.
Was the content relevant? Did residents know it existed? Was it easy to access? Had the council researched how people preferred to receive information?
We don't know the answers.
And how will the council measure the success of its printed replacement? Distribution isn't the same as readership, just as readership isn't necessarily evidence of understanding or engagement.
Print still has an important role in communication. But neither print nor digital can compensate for content that audiences don't find useful.
And there's more
Alongside our six discussions, Dan York contributed his regular Tech Report, covering critical PHP security vulnerabilities discovered with AI assistance, the latest Freedom House internet freedom report, developments in the fediverse and what's coming in Mastodon 5.0.
As always, Dan brings a valuable technical perspective to developments that can have significant implications for communication professionals.
What are we assuming?
Looking back over these conversations, I'm struck by how frequently communication challenges begin with assumptions.
We assume employees understand a strategy because we've explained it. We assume people will trust a technology once they've heard about its benefits. We assume a new product feature means what its name appears to promise.
We assume people receive our carefully crafted messages in the form we intended. And we assume a communication channel is effective, or ineffective, without always understanding why.
Yet the experiences of the people we're trying to reach may be quite different.
This isn't an argument against communicating clearly, choosing appropriate channels or using technology to improve how we work. Quite the opposite.
It's an argument for paying closer attention to the people on the receiving end.
For communicators, that means asking questions, listening carefully, challenging assumptions and looking for evidence that what we're doing makes a meaningful difference.
Good communication doesn't begin with what we want people to hear. It begins with understanding what they're actually experiencing.
These are some of the ideas Shel and I explored in FIR 533: The Two Distinct Realities of AI Adoption, published on 26 October.
You can listen to the full conversation, including all six stories and Dan York's Tech Report, on the FIR Podcast Network, or watch the video edition on YouTube. All story sources are included and linked to in the episode show notes.
As always, we'd welcome your thoughts on LinkedIn, Facebook or wherever you get your podcasts.
(Photo at top by Mathias Reding for Unsplash+)
