Hiding, Happiness & Human-AI Trust

Jenni: Welcome to Frequency, I’m Jenni Field.

Chuck: And I’m Chuck Gose.

Jenni: Frequency is your go-to for real talk about comms, culture, and employee experience — beyond the buzzwords and straight to what matters. And what matters today, Chuck, is “collywobbles” — a word I heard on TV recently and haven’t heard in years. Do you know it?

Chuck: I’ve known this word for about five seconds now.

Jenni: Fair — I was watching the latest Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman motorbike travel show, and at one particularly high point, Charley said it was giving him “the collywobbles.” It’s informal British slang for a nervous, fluttery feeling in your stomach, usually tied to nervousness or slight fear — like standing at the edge of somewhere high.

Chuck: Like butterflies. Fascinating — I don’t think that one’s crossing the Atlantic anytime soon.

Jenni: The other odd thing on my mind this week — escalators. Do you walk up and down them, or just stand?

Chuck: We have them too, obviously. There’s actually history here — they were originally designed as literal moving stairs, meant to be walked on while ascending, not just stood on. If I’m not carrying anything, sure, but with luggage, absolutely not — I am not walking on moving stairs with bags.

Jenni: Fair — I’m usually just on the London Underground with a backpack, so I’ll march straight up and down. I only ask because there’s a whole wellness conversation about how few people — something like 1% — actually walk them.

Chuck: I actually learned the etiquette on an early London trip — if you’re not walking, you stand to the right, single file, so people walking have a clear path, or you’ll get run over, glared at, or physically moved. I still do that today out of habit, luggage tucked right in front of me. On a recent flight, though, I watched a toddler encountering an escalator for what looked like the first time ever, and being absolutely terrified — which, thinking about the actual visual of it, makes total sense as a first-time experience. Never thought we’d be discussing escalators on this podcast, Jenni.

Jenni: Bringing the high-level conversation today. And in airports, moving walkways specifically — some people stand, some people, like you I imagine, treat every day like a race.

Chuck: Absolutely guilty. Last thing — with my event just finished, you’ve got one coming up that I know about as an ICology member — Flyover Festival in Sioux Falls this August. Tell everyone more.

Chuck: I love sharing this one — it came directly from our membership, a great group of members based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, who were tired of always having to travel elsewhere for events nobody ever brings to them. So we’re bringing it to them instead. This is our third annual Employee Comms and Culture Flyover Festival — one day, high energy, genuinely fun. It’s an easy sell to your boss too — no convincing needed for Vegas or Miami-sized budgets, just a straightforward, affordable day trip. Tickets and details are at joinicology.com, August 26th — a great chance to connect with other internal communicators in a city you’ve probably never visited.

Jenni: We’ll link that in the show notes so people can grab tickets. What are we covering this week?

Chuck: This week’s lineup covers what we hide, how we feel, whether AI is helping or hurting, and yes — whether your sneakers are too casual for your next big meeting. Starting with something deeply human: what we’re not saying at work, and what it’s costing us. A new HiBob report surveyed over 2,000 US workers and found 97% admit to “covering” — a term new to me — hiding aspects of who they are at least some of the time to fit in, with 40% doing it often or always. What’s hidden ranges from age and mental health to cultural background and everyday caregiving responsibilities. The top reasons: maintaining a “professional image,” improving promotion or raise chances, and avoiding discrimination or backlash. More than half report increased stress as a result, and many believe they’d be more productive, innovative, and happier without that pressure. Company cultures, especially highly competitive ones, are quietly rewarding conformity over authenticity, draining trust and creativity in the process. Jenni — does this mean we need to radically redefine what “professional” even means, and how can communicators help build cultures where people feel safe dropping the mask?

Jenni: This research genuinely fascinates me, particularly the specifics of what’s being hidden — the word “covering” makes it feel so deliberate, which is exactly what’s uncomfortable about it. It’s not “I’m just not sharing this for my own privacy,” it’s “I’m intentionally hiding this because it will actively harm me if I don’t.” Take the “professional image” reason — it made me reflect on my own career. I have naturally very curly hair, and for years I straightened it constantly, because curly hair never felt like part of a “professional image” to me — that pressure started from my very first job. I think we genuinely need to look at what “professional image” means today, partly because people simply don’t know how to respond well when someone discloses something like a mental health condition or caregiving responsibilities — met with blank looks or genuine unpreparedness to support it, which is exactly why people stop disclosing at all. That 97% figure is staggering and honestly makes me quite sad. I don’t have the full answer, but I do think we’re somewhere in a messy transitional patch right now — some people swinging hard toward full authenticity, others clinging tightly to older corporate norms — and it may simply take years to settle into something more balanced.

Chuck: Whether it’s curly hair or something like hiding visible tattoos, which has historically been a real workplace tension too, I think that specific area is genuinely relaxing over time. I push back gently on the “bring your whole self to work” cliché though — you don’t actually have to. But when people are actively hiding something, it says something real about the environment they’re in, not necessarily about their own insecurity, though that can be a factor too. I’ve heard stories — can’t attribute a specific example — of people hiding that they have children out of fear it would limit their career opportunities, which is the kind of thing that makes you realize how much silent judgment, real or perceived, is happening. “Covering” was a genuinely new term for me when I first read this report — credit to HiBob for surfacing this data. Worth a real moment of self-reflection on our own behaviors here, even when hiding something is for entirely valid personal reasons.

Jenni: Before we move on — I think we sometimes construct a story in our heads about what would happen if we disclosed something, and that story tends to skew negative, since we’re naturally wired to weigh threats heavily. So if you notice yourself covering something, it’s worth checking in on the actual story you’re telling yourself — where is it coming from, is there real evidence behind it, or is it self-protection you’ve built up without testing it. Sometimes environments genuinely are unpleasant enough to warrant real caution, but it’s always worth examining that story specifically.

Chuck: Completely agree. Next — Axios highlights new research from the National Bureau of Economic Research turning an old assumption on its head: companies with rising employee sentiment significantly outperform on the stock market, with firms in the top third for employee happiness seeing roughly 5% higher annual stock returns than peers, even controlling for industry, size, and profitability. Investors are increasingly watching Glassdoor scores and culture signals as early predictors of growth or trouble. If the link is this strong, do leaders actually care enough to act on it, or is culture still comfortably someone else’s job while the business quietly pays the cost?

Jenni: I take real issue with this research, honestly, because happiness isn’t an employer’s responsibility — it’s the individual’s. Making an employer responsible for someone’s happiness is genuinely impossible; that’s something we control ourselves, not something someone else owns. I think “happiness” is an unfortunate word choice here — when we talk about employee sentiment, Glassdoor scores, or culture more broadly, I’m fully on board, but “happiness” is too broad, too unquantifiable, and too clearly outside a leader’s actual control, which gives people a built-in excuse to switch off. If instead you framed it as “employees with a great experience see 5% higher stock returns,” that’s something a leader can genuinely explore, influence, and act on. But “how do we make people happier at work” isn’t a serious boardroom conversation — whereas “is our employee experience aligned with our values, contributing to what we say externally versus what’s actually happening internally” absolutely is, and I’d want to review that specifically because I can see the tangible 5% outcome tied to it.

Chuck: I think the researchers are probably regretting that word choice after hearing you take it apart. I wonder if it’s really about whether you’re creating an environment where genuine happiness is even possible — some companies actively aren’t. And maybe the oversimplification isn’t meant to spark rigorous debate, just to get people thinking “happy employees, better outcomes” at a gut level. Regardless of whose job it technically is, most people would want their employees to be happy on basic human instinct — so if that pushes companies to actually examine what they’re doing that makes people unhappy, that’s still a net positive, even with a sloppy framing.

Jenni: There’s a real risk too — if you asked employees directly “what would make you happier,” you might get answers like unlimited time off or working wherever they want, which sets you up to fail against actual organizational goals. I think this is a broader pattern in employee experience and internal comms — we sometimes use language that doesn’t land with business leaders, when this is exactly the moment to make a sharp business-impact case for good culture and communication instead. Framed the wrong way, it’ll just get dismissed entirely.

Chuck: Moving to a new Section report exposing a real disconnect in the AI boom — despite growing budgets and hype, most companies are barely scratching the surface of genuine impact. Surveying over 5,000 knowledge workers, it found average AI proficiency sits at just 39 out of 100, and while 54% believe they’re good at using it, only 1% are truly expert — unsurprisingly, mostly C-suite. Most employees stick to basic use as an assistant or content creator, with only 40% using it as a genuine thought partner, where deeper productivity gains typically show up — so it’s no surprise most people save under two hours a week, far short of reclaiming whole workdays. Worse, frontline and individual-contributor employees are half as likely as executives to get paid access to advanced AI tools — Section calls this “hollow progress”: companies look innovative on paper while quietly reinforcing old divides. If people feel underprepared and under-resourced, no wonder trust in AI is shaky — should communicators focus on building skill first to earn trust, before selling AI’s benefits?

Jenni: Probably a mix of both, honestly. What struck me is that people aren’t using AI as a genuine thought partner where deeper gains happen — and that connects to something I keep running into in conversations about AI: it lies. A friend of mine, a researcher specializing in the history of luxury hotels, asked ChatGPT to verify a fact, and it confidently cited a specific book, chapter, and page — which, being a proper researcher, he then went and checked physically at a library, and it simply wasn’t there. Entirely fabricated. His reaction afterward was essentially “I’m done, this isn’t helpful anymore” — so I don’t think I can sell him the benefits at that point, because trust is genuinely broken. This connects back to the cultural-intelligence conversation from last episode — trust in AI isn’t so different from trust in a person, and once broken, it’s genuinely hard to rebuild. If people don’t understand how to use it and don’t trust it, I think you have to start with rebuilding trust and demonstrating real benefit before skills training will actually land — so benefits first, then skills, is where I’m landing.

Chuck: I’d push back slightly on AI “lying” specifically — people are wrong and lie too, and I’m not equating AI with people here, this isn’t Soylent Green territory, but it’s worth remembering there’s always a gap between enthusiasts and people who are genuinely uncomfortable using it, or who simply never think to reach for it because their existing habits are deeply set — and changing any habit takes real time regardless of the tool. On that 39-out-of-100 proficiency score — is that actually bad, compared to typical proficiency scores for other unfamiliar software like Salesforce or Excel? I’m more curious about that 1%-experts figure, honestly, since some people are quick to self-label as experts — I’d call myself an enthusiast rather than an expert, genuinely curious what the tool can and can’t do, but your researcher friend’s story is a good reminder that AI output still needs verifying, no differently than information from any other source.

Jenni: Fair — and in that same breakfast conversation, my friend was asking how I actually use it, and admitted he hadn’t considered using it that way for other work. So it really is a “you don’t know what you don’t know” situation, similar to any new technology platform — you need to understand the actual benefits and use cases first to know which specific skills are even worth learning, otherwise you’re learning to use a hammer when you actually needed a spanner.

Chuck: It’s often about pausing to ask whether a tool could genuinely help with something specific. On a recent trip, I had a pile of receipts — hotels, restaurants, rideshares — and was curious about the spending breakdown without wanting to manually calculate it myself. I uploaded everything to ChatGPT and asked it to categorize and total things, and got back numbers that were good enough for what I needed — I didn’t bother verifying, because I only wanted a rough estimate, not precision. Doing it myself would’ve taken fifteen or twenty minutes; ChatGPT did it in about thirty seconds, and I was completely happy trading precision for speed on that specific task.

Jenni: And when you’re feeding it actual source material directly, like uploaded receipts, it’s working from your provided data rather than pulling from memory — so it needs far less verification than an open-ended factual question does. Great use case.

Chuck: Though I have noticed times where it’s misread a date I gave it directly and just returned the wrong one — so, very human of it, not even reading its own source material properly.

Chuck: Moving to a more everyday-applicable AI story — Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, who we’ve discussed before, just put AI front and center for the company’s 1.5 million employees, declaring AI fluency non-negotiable. In his annual shareholder letter and an internal memo, he laid out plans to upskill hundreds of thousands of workers in generative AI, from HQ engineers to warehouse teams — a good real-world tie-in to the Section report, given only 1% of workers are truly proficient. So, can companies actually close that proficiency gap fast enough, or will employees just feel overwhelmed and left behind again? How can communicators keep trust and confidence high when mandatory upskilling lands on people who may already feel anxious and unprepared?

Jenni: This reminds me again of last week’s cultural-intelligence discussion — people sitting at different points on the enthusiasm-to-resistance spectrum. This is a massive undertaking for Amazon, but fundamentally it’s a change program, no different from any other resistance you’d see around a new system rollout or office relocation — the same human emotions and conflict show up regardless of what the change actually is. I applaud the investment in upskilling in principle, but right now it’s really just a promise — what it actually looks like in practice, we don’t know yet. It’s easy to get swept up in AI-specific excitement when this is really just change management, and people will feel exactly what they always feel during major change.

Chuck: I’d use the word “hoopla” over “fanfare,” personally. What stood out in the memo too — for anyone assuming AI isn’t coming for jobs, Jassy explicitly stated AI use will reduce Amazon’s total corporate workforce. Leaked internal Slack messages quoted employees calling the cost-cutting emphasis “dangerous,” with one calling it “the antithesis of think big,” one of Amazon’s own principles. Amazon’s already been cutting jobs, so if this accelerates that, the message to employees is essentially: upskill now, or be at real risk.

Jenni: This also connects to something from an earlier episode — the century-old construct of the standard work week and how technology should arguably have already reshaped it by now. The pandemic was one catalyst; AI may genuinely be the next one, and the way we work is going to look different regardless. That doesn’t soften the blow of being told AI will shrink your workforce directly, but I’m genuinely curious whether this is short-term reduction followed by new roles emerging as the technology creates different kinds of work longer-term. Every AI adoption stat we’ve discussed on this podcast still shows nowhere near half of people using it regularly — 20%, maybe 40% at most — so I’m very curious what “upskilling” concretely looks like in practice, and how long it actually takes, because there are a lot of variables still unresolved.

Chuck: I wonder if Amazon’s own employee base skews toward slightly higher AI usage than the general workforce, just by the nature of who works there.

Chuck: Let’s close on something lighter, though one I’m glad we’re covering, and one that’s mildly frustrated me for years — a Washington Post guide laying out 39 rules for redefining “business casual” in a post-pandemic world. Elastic-waist trousers and clean, minimalist sneakers are fine; Crocs, slides, and emoji-covered t-shirts are an immediate no. Clothing shouldn’t be too tight or too loose, natural fibers are preferred, wrinkle-free or well-steamed, and there’s room for individuality within a “not too” rule — not too short, not too revealing, not too sloppy. The guide encourages employees to ask HR directly for clarity, especially helpful for new hires. Dress codes send a clear cultural signal, but honestly — who has time to police this? Should leaders focus less on appearance and more on what actually builds trust and belonging, or does this genuinely matter?

Jenni: I say this with some trepidation, but I do think it matters — we make snap judgments about people within the first three or four seconds, so how you show up genuinely does communicate something, and I think that’s tied to who you are and how you want to present yourself. I don’t think everyone needs to conform to a suit and tie if that’s not their natural style, but I do think real social norms exist across different industries and cultures, and those aren’t disappearing anytime soon. There’s a balance, though — I’m personally not a fan of Crocs, so I’m fully on board with banning those. But I’ve also had a CEO look me up and down in cut-off trousers, ballet flats, and a striped shirt and ask if I was “going camping” — so this conversation isn’t new. I do think there’s real value in dressing intentionally for an occasion and how that affects your own confidence. I’ve worked with a stylist, Lisa, for years, because early in my consultancy I found myself shape-shifting entirely depending on the client — jeans and a blazer for an agency, a smart dress and heels for a FTSE 100 — and working with her helped me find a personal style flexible enough to feel confident and comfortable everywhere, rather than constantly performing a different version of myself. I’ve even thought about color psychology before board meetings — blue for calm and influence, avoiding something as bold as red, which can read as aggressive. I don’t think that kind of intentionality is inherently a bad thing.

Chuck: I deliberately connected this back to our earlier “covering” conversation, because I think this is genuinely part of the same theme. I do think baseline guidance helps people who simply don’t know the expectations — I’ve always compared dress codes to religion: some people need explicit rules, others already intuitively know how to be a good person, or in this case, how to dress appropriately, without needing it spelled out. To this day, if anyone asks the single best piece of career advice I’ve ever received, it’s from my very first three-month performance review at 22, fresh out of college — glowing feedback overall, except my boss told me I really needed to learn how to use an iron. I’m still the designated ironer in our household, and in hotel rooms, because of that one comment. How you show up does matter — it’s the overly specific fabric and shoe-brand policing that tips into excessive.

Jenni: Agreed — dress-code micromanagement isn’t okay, and the natural-fibers detail struck me as oddly specific when you read it out. But I do like the “not too” framing — not too short, not too revealing, not too sloppy — that kind of guidance is genuinely useful, the same way growing up as a young woman you learned not to show cleavage and leg at the same time, just one or the other. It’s helpful guidance for navigating life, generally.

Chuck: That wraps our stories for the week. What’s your freak-out?

Jenni: Mine is voting systems on live Q&A platforms at events — it’s conference season, and I’ve been to plenty for both clients and the industry. Slido seems most common, where audience questions get submitted and voted on. Great system, in principle — but only if you actually honor the results. I’ve now been to a few events where the top-voted question gets quietly ignored because it’s uncomfortable, and for me that’s a genuine ethical line. If you’re not prepared to ask the top-voted question, even without a satisfying answer ready, then don’t offer the voting system at all — ignoring it just breaks trust with the room.

Chuck: Completely agree. Mine is four words: methane-powered sea spiders. We’re apparently polluting the ocean with enough greenhouse gas that there are now sea spiders feeding directly on methane in seawater as their fuel source — straight out of science fiction, except real, multiple news sources confirming it, and yes, we did this to ourselves.

Jenni: I have a genuine fear of spiders, so I’m absolutely not looking this up myself — but “powered” is doing a lot of work in that phrase. I’ve got visions of massive mutant spiders emerging to get us all. Not researching this further.

Chuck: Who knows. Now you know that was my freak-out. Thank you all for joining us this week — all the articles, including a link to the methane-powered sea spiders story, are in the show notes, so don’t forget to rate and review after listening. Subscribe so you don’t miss an episode, and pass this along to anyone you think would enjoy watching or listening — you can find Frequency on YouTube too. Thank you to Poet Ali for contributing the music to the show. We’ll be back next week with more news, insights, and opinions about comms and leadership in the workplace today. Keep tuning in and turning up.