Respected But Not Credible: Only 30% of IC Pros Can Prove Business Impact

[00:00:09] Welcome to Frequency, I'm Chuck Gose. Jenni Field Frequency is your go-to for real talk about comms, culture and employee experience beyond the buzzwords and straight to what matters. And this week we are talking about the credibility gap for internal comms pros. We've had a sneak peek at the IC index from the Institute of Internal Comms, so we're going to touch on that as well.

[00:00:32] I'm going to talk about the importance of capability rather than happiness and how to use employee frustration as a business case for change. And full disclosure, it might get a bit ranty today. So this week we're talking about the credibility gap for IC pros. I'm also going to be sharing a little sneak peek from the Institute of Internal Comms IC index, which is going to be out on the 20th of May. We're going to talk about the importance of capability rather than happiness and how to use employee frustration as a business case.

[00:01:02] Case for change. And full disclosure, this might get a bit ranty. That better not just be a mite, Jenni, because few people love rants more than this guy here. But getting into my own rant right now, it is peak allergy season here in the Midwest. I feel if you look out, you can just see the allergy fairies floating in the sky, ready to invade.

[00:01:29] And so to keep myself from clawing at my eyes and sneezing my brains out, let's talk about some events that we have coming up. Jenni, we have been invited back to Unilead's Unite event. Last year we were in Nashville and did a live episode of Frequency there. We're going to be in London September 29th and 30th for their event this year. And you can use a good Frequency 20 off any of their tickets. That saves you 20%. And they've got some different, even a VIP level tickets. So Frequency 20 saves 20% off those tickets.

[00:01:58] We will be there for the entire event, including doing our live show. Let's also spend some time talking about some other events that we have coming up. June 17th. Jenni, you've got your comms reboot in Toronto. I then have my flyover festival in Sioux Falls, South Dakota on August 27th. And then back in London, Jenny, you are with comms reboot on October 9th. And there's other things obviously that we're a part of, but we'll include links to all these for people that want to join us at any of those events.

[00:02:27] Yes, I'm excited. You're going to be in London for like a whole week and a bit, I think. Maybe two, maybe. It's going to be extended. Yes, it's going to be extended. I'm excited. I'm excited. I'm excited. Well, let's kick off with the IC index. So on the 20th of May, this will be published. So as I said, we've had a sneak preview of the full report. So thank you very much to the folks at the IOIC. So we can share some of the key themes.

[00:02:54] Now, I heard some of this at the festival that the IOIC hosted, but I've had a good dig into it. So if you're not familiar with the IC index, it's an online survey with a representative sample of around 5000 UK workers in organizations with 500 or more employees aged between 1875. And it was carried out the last few weeks of January. So what's important here is that this survey talks to employees inside organizations. It's not talking to comms people or HR people.

[00:03:25] So we've got six key insights from the report and then a few other bits and pieces that I want to bring in. So six insights. The first is more change, less clarity. The report shines a light on the volume of organizational change increasing, but less than half of employees agree the reasons behind the change are clearly communicated and even fewer agree their organization is good at helping them adapt to change.

[00:03:50] They also feel like the organization isn't honest about the impact of that change or that their organization listens to their views. The second is that trust in leaders has fallen. So trust in all levels of leadership has declined in the last year with senior leadership teams really taking the brunt of that. Half of employees don't trust their CEOs or senior leaders and older employees are less likely to trust. I'm not sure if I'm part of that bracket, but I'm going to leave that there.

[00:04:19] Leaders are out of touch. So the research says that leaders are overestimating how well important topics have been communicated. The majority of them feel the strategy has been made very clear. They've explained how AI will be used, but the data shows that that's not quite the case. This reminded me of a conversation we had in episode 41 where we talked about some survey data from Lars Hank, who was talking about the widening satisfaction gap between senior leaders and employees.

[00:04:47] And that had gone from 13% in 2022 all the way to 30% in 2026. So that's not new. We know that already, but just being reinforced. The next one is confidence in the future of the organization. So confidence is driven by honest communication and clarity. Current work process, the approach to AI, all of that are having an impact on how employees feel about the confidence in the future of their organization.

[00:05:14] We're still talking about comms and the front line. So the report shines a light on the fact that people who aren't at a computer are more likely to hear about big changes through word of mouth, and they are less positive across all sorts of different topics, including levels of trust. That's nothing really new there. And the final point, the sixth point is that people are even shorter on time. So most people have 10 minutes or less a day to engage with communication and one in five. So they have hardly no, sorry, they have no or hardly any time.

[00:05:45] But the nice to know still matters. Poor communication of good news damages advocacy more than poor communication of bad news. Now I've had a look at the report, heard some headlines last week. These are some other things that I wanted to bring into this, and this is where I might get a little bit ranty. So communication is just getting worse inside organizations, not better in every way. There is nothing in this report that really shows anything is going in the right direction.

[00:06:14] I'm not sure internal communicators are equipped to shift into what is organizational communication, which is what this report is really asking them to do. And this is a gap I've started to talk about more and I think we're not equipping people to do that. The report also says that restructures are normal now if they weren't before. And this means we have to know how to do good comms when the message sucks. And I'm not sure we all know how to do that.

[00:06:43] This is a stat in there about managers spending 30 minutes or less a day communicating. I don't know how we're defining communicating in this context, but there is a point in the report that says internal comms professionals need to be connected into the reality of working life for all their audiences. Yes. Yes, but that has been the case for decades. So if we could, that would be lovely.

[00:07:11] And the report also includes a really nice framework actually for understanding different personas of managers. That's really worth checking out when the report is live. Relevance is still a massive issue for comms having the impact it really needs. But the bit I took issue with when I heard this at the festival last week, and the bit I want to kick off our debate with, is the top five drivers of confidence in the future of the organization.

[00:07:37] And it was suggested that IC has a significant role and can impact three of the five. These are the five. I am connected to the people at work beyond my immediate team. The work processes in my organization allow employees to work differently. I believe communication from my employer is open and honest. My employer has been clear on the organizational strategy and the priorities. I believe we're using AI to solve the right problems in my organization.

[00:08:08] Now, Chuck, what are the three that you think internal comms should be leading or playing a vital role in? Because for me, it's only two. And I got so enraged, I swallowed my words there. I couldn't quite get my question out. One, thanks for inviting me to the conversation. Jenni, it's great to be a part of the episode. Thanks for having me on. When I do a report, stats update. I feel like now this is some kind of test.

[00:08:35] Like I'm going to figure out which two are yours because I came up with three. Oh, shit. Yep. I believe I'm connected to the people at work beyond my immediate team. Absolutely have an impact. Okay. Work processes, marginalize employees work differently. You don't really have an impact on that. I believe communication my employer is open and honest. Yes, I believe you play a vital role and impact that. My employer has been clear on the org strategy and priorities. Yes, I believe you have an impact on that.

[00:09:05] I believe we're using AI to solve the right problems in organization. I don't think you have an impact on that. So I think there's, I see three of them. Okay. So I like your three and two of them are the same as mine, but one of them is different. So this is what we were told last week. The three are, I believe communication from my employer is open and honest. We both agree. Tick. My employer has been clear on the organizational strategy and priorities. Tick. That's where I finish for internal cons.

[00:09:31] However, the suggestion on the stage was the third one is I believe we're using AI to solve the right problems in my organization. And that's where I went. Yeah. I was like, no, I am in a room with a variety of different levels of internal communication professionals. And I do not believe that you should be telling them that this is their job. This to solve the right problems in my organization. What? Like, yeah, no, no.

[00:09:59] But I think the first one about being connected to the people who work beyond my immediate team, that might be the most critical aspect of success. But I don't know that we, I think that is hard to do from an internal commas perspective. I think that's down to your line manager. Oh, I disagree. It's down to your team structure. I think that is easy to do. That is right there for the taking because you get to, you have the privilege of getting to work with so many different departments and so many different teams.

[00:10:28] If you don't build those connections, then it's going to be harder to do all of those other things, in my opinion. Okay, fair. I mean, I will agree to disagree on that because I don't want to just get down a rabbit hole of which one. You can just agree that you're incorrect on it. That's what we can do. The other part that I want to talk about when let's, let's get past those five. When you were talking about the more change, less care, clarity, trust in leaders is fallen. Leaders are out of touch. Confidence is complex. Communications fail the front line.

[00:10:57] People are shorter on time. What I was thinking of was basically this is turning a mirror to life outside of work. This is now a pure reflection of what people are experiencing inside of work is the same as outside of work. Outside of work. There is way more change and so much less clarity in things that are going on around us. We see that trust in leaders in all levels of our lives has fallen. We feel they're out of touch with things, especially here in the U.S. Confidence.

[00:11:27] No one's confident in anything anymore. So I think what we're just seeing is that the what people are experiencing outside of work is now being reflected back inside and we've just shined a mirror to each other on it. Yeah, I don't disagree at all. We talked about the banai world, I think, in a few other episodes.

[00:11:46] And this is where I think I have this challenge around internal communication versus organizational communication, because internal comms is the traditional internal comms of channels and content and audience and kind of aligning all of those things. Organizational comms is looking at leadership and culture and those bigger things that we are getting more involved in.

[00:12:08] But with that comes an understanding of the complexities outside of the organization and the the messiness of work and life and how that all comes together. And I don't necessarily feel like we've we've joined those dots and brought that together, whereas this report is talking to employees and organizations about everything in their organization. And it's being reported as their internal comms can fix all of this or should have a role to play in this.

[00:12:32] And I honestly, I was reading it and it is a fantastic report since its fourth year and I've always enjoyed reading it. But every time I do, I feel a bit like, A, this is quite overwhelming. There's quite a lot in here. B, what am I what do I really need to do to make a difference in what like what's really in my control and influence as an internal comms person in the role that I exist in in this organization?

[00:12:55] And I think I think you could read it feel very overwhelmed feel like you're doing a rubbish job and then and then just sit, you know, walking in a corner. Like I there is a lot in there and I think it's bigger than internal comms. And I feel like there's a pressure being put on internal comms people to fix a lot of stuff that is bigger, more societal, reflective of what's going on everywhere.

[00:13:18] I think the other part here, which it's such an indictment and whether we've explicitly talked about it or, you know, kind of hidden in the words that we talked about is this trust component. And I was trying to think of this. Imagine maybe it maybe doesn't impact others the way it would be if somebody came to me and said, hey, I don't trust you. Oh, that is harsh. That is deep. And that is but is also very meaningful that comes from somewhere.

[00:13:47] So imagine I can't imagine being the leader of an organization saying my employees saying we don't trust you. What have you done to to that to where they don't trust your leadership? They don't whether it's the words you say, the actions you take. That is just that's a very heavy thing to deal with. Yeah, but I don't feel that it's it's personal enough in connection for people to care.

[00:14:16] It's a bit like the invisible army, right? If you came to me and said, I've heard all these I've heard these people say you can't be trusted. I'm like, that's an invisible army of people. Like, do we care about them? Because I don't know them and I'm not sure that's true. And where's that coming from? I wonder if these are your employees. These are the people that work at your company. But I think if it doesn't feel like they are real people, whereas if you came in and said, look, I was having a chat with Janet. She explained the situation to me. It's had an impact.

[00:14:45] She said, you know, leading her to not trust you. That's a very different conversation to all of these people, which I think makes it harder to care about. Like, and I'm not saying that's right. I just I wonder if there is an element of facelessness to an organization with the remote, with the hybrid, with the size that makes it feel less meaningful than if you have a name and a person and someone sitting there and saying to you, I don't trust you.

[00:15:12] Like, that's very different to 80% of the organization feel that you can't. Do you know what I mean? Like, it feels a slightly colder. I see what you're saying. But I actually think if it's if let's pick on Janet. Sorry, Janet, if you're listening, whoever Janet is. If Janet doesn't trust me, then I feel like if I wanted to, I could have a conversation with Janet and come up with a way to rebuild that trust. This invisible army you talked about, which also happens to be your employees at this company.

[00:15:41] You can't have that conversation. So you've done with every single person. So you you've done something. The organization has done something to say that the people that are often the face of your organization, the ones making the magic happen, do not trust you. That is such an indictment that I can't believe a leader would not care. And what is that if they do not care? What does that then say about them? But I and again, I think it's I think you can bat it away.

[00:16:11] I think if I think you can say or you can tell yourself the story of this isn't really about me because no one's going deeper into that. We're just, you know, 80% of the organization doesn't trust you to your point. What has been what has happened to get there? You have to go and find that out to then be able to have the conversation to go, look, this is this is what the numbers are saying. This is why these numbers are here. We've diagnosed what they're what the what's behind them. And this is how we're going to fix it.

[00:16:37] If that step is missing to get people to really care to make a difference and be comfortable that they are part of that, it doesn't work. Whereas if you came to me as a CEO and said, 80% of people don't trust you, I'd be like, is it me or is it the whole team? Because I feel like it's everyone else. Like, I think I think you can go, oh, I think it's just more a line manager thing. I think it's more. I think you can bat it away unless you've got the real evidence to back up what's happened.

[00:17:05] I think it's easy to tell yourself a story as a leader that it's not you. It's everyone else. So on to another report that came across my desk. So this came across my desk thanks to Anne-Marie Blake, who shared it in my CIPR Inside committee chat group. And it's a report from Oak Engage.

[00:17:33] And the headline is the credibility gap in internal comms is despite high professional esteem. So Oak Engage ran a survey of 250 HR and internal comms professionals across the UK in the last week of February. The report was published this early May, as we're recording. And she quotes from the InComms article that featured the report where it says a significant number, 60%,

[00:18:00] lack the insight to determine whether their messages are reaching or influencing employees. More than half stated that poor communication wastes one to two hours per employee each week. Anne-Marie goes on to say, here we are in 2026 having the same conversation about internal comms measurement. There is so much out there to help IC demonstrate the value of your work beyond hits and clicks.

[00:18:22] I felt her frustration in that post and thought I'd just bring the conversation into here. So a little bit more from the report, less than I shared from the IC index. But what does the report say? So it says internal comms is valued but not fully embedded, measurable or optimized in the way it needs to be. 94% say internal comms is respected. Only 30% can demonstrate business impact.

[00:18:49] 48% say that they act as a strategic advisor. 60% lack visibility into whether comms are reaching or influencing employees. 66% rely heavily on manager-led comms cascades. They call out the need to shift from outputs to outcomes. And in the report, there's a nice table for comms activity, business metric and outcome if you need to get started.

[00:19:13] And there's a quote in there which says, closing the credibility gap is a continuous journey that depends on building trust, embedding meaningful relationships and consistently demonstrating value through insight and action. Now, if you would like to know more about credibility and how to raise that gap, then do let me know because I have a whole framework on it for leaders and comms people. And it is the biggest gap. So my question for you, Chuck, is what is getting in the way of this change happening?

[00:19:42] Because as Annemarie has said, here we are again in 2026 having the same conversation. What's getting in the way of change? Well, it's funny because I was going to give you a little kudo here as a credibility expert, but you just did it yourself. I did. You gave your own kudo. Yeah, do it. I'm going to come back to a question to you, Jenny. Define or give me the context of the difference between respect and credibility.

[00:20:12] How are the two related? How are the two not related? So I can. So if I find you credible, I'm going to follow you and believe you. That's the outcome we want from credibility. Now I can respect you, but I cannot follow you. So that's a different, it's a different outcome. So I can be like, I completely respect your point of view, your expertise, all of those things, but I'm still going to go over here. Like, and I think that's the difference is it doesn't encourage that followership.

[00:20:41] And that's why credibility is complex.

[00:21:11] I can respect, I would respect you first. And then I would find you credible. And I was like, Oh, I think I think you are credible. And then I might learn to respect you. So we had quite the debate in terms of what comes first. And I think that comes down to your own values, lived experience and stuff. Yeah, because to me, part of this, there's something about this, I guess the math isn't mathing.

[00:21:31] And that's what I was trying to figure out is that we hear the sentiment seems to say one thing, but then this data is saying something else where the sentiment is that we, I would say collective we read here that internal comms feel so disrespected in industries. But yet, in a survey of ourselves, I guess it's internal comms and HR, we're saying it is respected. Hmm. So, which is it? It's are we when we said we don't feel respected?

[00:22:00] Are we were we really saying we don't feel credible? That's why I was trying to understand the difference on that. Because then if only 30% can demonstrate impact, then you're not going to be credible. Like your people are going to question maybe, maybe that's the wrong word. Let me take that back. You're not, you're not credible. People are going to question your credibility. If you can't disnerate impact, it doesn't mean you're not credible. It means they're going to probably question the credibility.

[00:22:24] And if only half are saying they act as a strategic advisor, that might bring that number down a little bit more. So things just feel very fluid. I don't know if this is because it's a survey of ourselves that we're saying this thing versus the past survey, which was of employees. I would love to know from the employee side what it is. And there was another data point. Oh, more than half stated poor communication wastes one to two hours per employee each week.

[00:22:51] I would love to know what poor means here versus no communication. How much does no communication waste? Is it less than one to two? Is it more than one to two? I have a feeling it'd be more than one to two hours are wasted. So poor is better than none. So how do we elevate that? How do we grow that? That's our job. That's our, that's our role.

[00:23:14] So a bit like you, when I was reading this, I was confused by the stats and the data because it doesn't, the math is not mapping to use your point. And, and I think you hit the nail on the head when you said maybe it's because this is a survey of ourselves. So it's a survey of internal comms and HR people talking about their profession.

[00:23:34] And I think we need to probably stop doing this because I'm not sure how helpful that data and insight is around this because 94% say internal comms is respected. And my question is, what does that look like? So, I mean, what was the question? Do you feel respect? I don't know, but nine, that's really high. I feel respected yet only 30% can demonstrate a business impact.

[00:24:02] Well, that doesn't make sense because to you to be truly respected as a function, you would be having an impact, but 70% of people can't demonstrate any kind of business impact. But 94% feel respected. Only 48% are a strategic advisor. So this is making me think, are we feeling respected in our ability to post content on an intranet and send out emails?

[00:24:26] Because I'm not, we're definitely not being respected as a strategic advisor and something that is linked to organizational performance and advising leaders and culture. And that says everything about the state of internal comms as a profession at the moment. And this is my issue with, is it internal comms? Is it organizational comms? And actually, this survey to me is almost saying it's all about the content and the channels. It's not about the strategic advice.

[00:24:54] And I wonder too, because I did the quick math in my head of this 250 people, that means roughly 235, give or take, are saying internal comms is respected. It's other 15, give or take, that are saying it is not. And I wonder, is that the effort of comms? Or is it the people? Or are the two connected? Or are the two separate? If you say, oh, my internal comms team is respected, but we hate what they do. We love what they do, but we don't like the team.

[00:25:24] Like, what does internal comms mean here? I think it's a great discussion, but I guess, and this goes to where I was going to give you credit, which you gave yourself around credibility. Is this really what communicators and HR leaders should be focused on? Yeah, it's exactly that. And it's, respect is like credibility. It's a perception. It's a feeling. So if you've said, do you feel respected? Well, yes. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what would be happening if I don't. Or is my function respected? Like, do you know what I mean?

[00:25:53] If we asked leaders, are you trusted? And be like, well, obviously, of course. Yes. Of course we're trusted. Of course we are. Yeah. I'm bloody great. Absolutely. I know. I know. So, okay. That's enough of reports now. I'll move on to some LinkedIn posts so we can just calm down.

[00:26:11] So, the next one is about capability, not happiness at work. So, this was a post that was talking about a meta analysis of 113 studies covering around 38,000 employees found a moderate correlation between job satisfaction and performance.

[00:26:40] But it's a real statistic, but it's not a decisive link that most leadership narratives would really get. So, basically, the relationship isn't consistent. They're saying it's stronger in service roles where behavior is visible, weaker in manufacturing where tasks are constrained, stronger in individualistic cultures, and weaker in collectivist ones. Self-reported performance data also inflates these numbers considerably.

[00:27:07] The deeper point on this is that satisfaction is a signal, not a mechanism. Things like autonomy, feedback, recognition, meaningful work don't improve performance by themselves. They improve it by changing the conditions under which people operate. The problem is that most organizations are still treating satisfaction as this destination. So, they measure engagement, they run surveys, launch initiatives, but rarely stop to ask whether the system itself actually allows for people to perform at their best.

[00:27:36] The article says, you don't get performance by making people happy. You get performance when the system allows capability to show up. And I love everything about this. But, Chuck, if satisfaction is a signal rather than a driver, and the real question is whether the system allows that capability to show up, what does that mean for how organizations are currently spending their time and money on engagement? And are they solving the wrong problem entirely?

[00:28:02] Satisfaction is such an interesting word to me because there's an element of contentment to it. It's not excited for, it's if you're satisfied. I think very few people, like, satisfaction the goal of something that you're involved in, but maybe in some cases it should be. And as you were talking about this, I was thinking through this video that I saw, probably on TikTok, from a school janitor. Mm-hmm.

[00:28:31] Talking about the pride they had in their role and what they did for the school. And most people probably wouldn't think about that from a janitor at, it seemed like an elementary school, the way this guy was talking about it. But his satisfaction came from saying he loved the fact that everything he did for his job did not put money in someone else's pocket.

[00:28:58] What he did for his job was actually building a safe and clean environment for teachers and kids. Mm-hmm. I thought, what a healthy way to view a role that I think a lot of other people probably look down on. And here this person not only takes a lot of pride in their role, but the satisfaction isn't coming from a place that we think of other people where it's like driving revenue, blah, blah, blah, whatever those numbers are.

[00:29:24] His was simply creating a safe and clean environment for these kids and teachers. And I thought that was such a healthy way. And I don't know that workplaces think about satisfaction in that way. They probably think about it from the metrics and the KPIs and all the other things they look at, not that individual person. Where do they drive satisfaction from? Mm-hmm. And you've reminded me, actually, I'm going to have to go and dig it out after this conversation.

[00:29:50] There was some sort of equation I was looking at to do with satisfaction, and it was either linked to stress or burnout or rest or happiness. It's in one of those buckets of things of where satisfaction fits in terms of our ability to feel happiness or something like that. And we might have talked about it in previous episodes, but I'll try and dig it out because there is definitely something about what makes us satisfied and kind of what's behind that.

[00:30:17] But I think, you know, he's talking about satisfaction, but he's also, to the point of this, is he's got the system is allowing capability. Like, he's doing the work. Like, he's doing the stuff he's capable. There's no friction in there. He's doing the stuff he wants to do. He's got autonomy. He's got meaningful work. You know, that is having an impact because the conditions that he's operating in are right. And I think that's... And you know what's funny about that? I want to jump in.

[00:30:45] What's funny about that in the video, I'm glad you mentioned that. He talks about how a really good day for him is when he doesn't see his manager. Yeah. Because he's just able to work. And a manager showing up is like an interruption for him. So from a capability, like the manager interrupts the capability because he just, he wants to do the job. And I think sometimes satisfaction could actually show up in data as disengagement. Yeah.

[00:31:15] Because we always... Engagement so often looks at this discretionary effort. Yeah. Well, if you're dissatisfied, you're probably not giving. You're just doing the job. Yeah. But this... And this is what comes back to what we were talking about off-air before this in terms of what's in my brain about employee engagement. And is it really... Is that really what we're measuring? Should it just be satisfaction that people are satisfied with things here and they do feel that they can show up and do this,

[00:31:40] rather than something like engagement, which is just now messy and all sorts of things about that. But it throws up a big question for me. And I think it's a good, you know, it's a good analysis of different studies that are quite broad to really bring this forward in terms of don't focus on satisfaction, focus on the system allowing capability to show up. Now, the final article today is about employee frustration. So what if employee frustration was your most valuable architecture data?

[00:32:09] This was a recent article from Zoom, which makes the case that employee frustration with workplace technology isn't noise to be managed, but it's some of the most valuable data an organization has. When employees quietly bypass approved tools, complain in chat threads or work around systems that keep failing them, they're providing an unfiltered audit of where the infrastructure is broken.

[00:32:31] The article argues that IT leaders who learn to read that frustration as an architectural signal rather than an HR or compliance problem can reposition themselves from gatekeepers to genuine strategic architects. Now, the research from a Zoom and Deloitte study found that 94% of employees encounter friction somewhere in the meeting lifecycle. The average employee loses around 1.6 hours every week just preparing for meetings. I mean, what are you doing?

[00:32:58] Across enterprises, employees are switching between nine or more applications in a single workday, creating what the article calls integration debt, a hidden drag on decision speed and productivity that never appears on a balance sheet but everyone feels. So the core argument really is that if you're sitting on this ready-made sort of mandate where people are saying, this isn't working, this is a problem, this is, you know, frustrating, we have to listen to that and actually use it in some meaningful way.

[00:33:27] But this also doesn't feel necessarily new, you know, it feels very familiar for the comms world. So do you think organizations genuinely just don't see the signal? Or do you think they're just not acting on it and it doesn't really make any difference because we're just going to crack on with the direction that we're going in? Is, is integration debt coming into our new buzzword library here? Yes. I think that's a good one. I challenge you to... I feel like I need a noise, like to put it in, like, it's in. I challenge you to use that this weekend with your friends.

[00:33:57] Okay. Somehow bring an integration debt into that to see if it fits. The part around here, and if anybody is coming to IABC World Conference this June, Panaki, Kathy, Aaron, and I are talking a little bit about this in our session, is about friction. So it talks about 90% of, 94% of employees encounter friction somewhere in the meeting life cycle. This, this equates friction as a negative. Mm hmm. Friction isn't necessarily a negative. It could be. It doesn't have to be. Friction could be very positive.

[00:34:27] So I think with this, frustration is, is natural. There, there's always going to be a gap between what companies want and what employees experience and all of those things. That's just the natural state of it. I don't know that companies, not that they don't see the signal or not act on it. I just think, I don't think they care about it. I think it's like, to use your words, they just crack on with it. Yeah.

[00:34:55] It's, it's not, it's not a critical thing, or they just expect employees to solve it for themselves. It is data. It is worth looking at, but I don't think it's a situation where they need to solve every single problem, where there's some kind of friction there, where the friction could actually be a good thing for the company. Yeah. I totally agree on the friction. I'm still reading the friction project, which is a great read about that. And atomic habits also talks about friction, putting it in, taking it away and stuff. So that'll be a great session at world conference for anyone going.

[00:35:23] Um, but I, I suppose for me, I just thought people have been frustrated for years and I'm not sure anyone's thought, let's take this frustration and do something positive with it. I think they thought, yes, we understand you're frustrated. However, our strategy is to go and do this. Um, and I don't think, I don't think anyone's ever really going to change that. And to your point, some friction is, is good. I think if you've got a load of people saying this tool is really impossible to use and we can't do it, then you have to listen to that.

[00:35:50] But you also have to look at trends and data and analysis and just not the people that shout the loudest. And I think sometimes could just be change. Yes. Yeah. It could just be that you're, you've got to get through that part. Last week, I think it was last week. You mentioned one of my least favorite business quotes that people mentioned that the Henry Ford faster horse thing. I think you mentioned that last week. I mentioned that. Yeah. The, one of my least favorite images that I see people share around work is like,

[00:36:18] it shows this, the sidewalk cross section. And then it's like a path people have made around the sidewalk and they're like, oh, this is the design, but the, but the user experience and the real experience is them cutting the corner. Maybe. But what we don't know is like, was that path there first? And then they built the sidewalk. Was the sidewalk closed for a little while? So people had to make the path and now they love having the sidewalk. Like we're, we're making interpretations on it.

[00:36:45] So this is where, yes, people will always have workarounds. If something is failing them, that's them solving a problem. And every system doesn't work for every single person in the exact same way. And also that's what it is to be human. That's why we've evolutionary survived, evolved in this way is because we find solutions and work around to problems. And that's our ability to do that, like in, in, in whatever way. So that concludes our articles for this week.

[00:37:15] In terms of our freak outs, my freak out this week, you've already mentioned is comms reboot coming to Toronto on the 17th of June. I'd love to see you there. If you're attending World Conference, it's the day after. Well, I will be there. Jenni, you will see me there. I will be there. I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to the person listening to us. I would love to see you there. I will. But it will be the communications unconference. If you've not been before, it's all about you setting the agenda, having good conversations, solving some problems.

[00:37:43] I'm really excited to be partnering with you at Eikology, Chuck, and also Panarki at Local Wisdom, Andrea at Vision to Voice, and Priya at Inner Strength. So I'm super excited about all that. But if you want to come along, the link to grab your ticket is in the show notes. We still have some left. And I'm freaking out because it's not far away now. And so that's why it's in my freak out, because I keep going, oh, my God, it's like four weeks away, five weeks ago. Oh, my God. So, yeah, what's yours this week? Mine is, we're getting a little personal here with this freak out.

[00:38:13] A few episodes back, I mentioned about having my first, I guess I would describe it an old man doctor appointment where once you turn 50, a whole batch of new opportunities open up for you from the medical world. And so I will be having my first colonoscopy, which I've never had before. And I know a lot of our listeners have had. And I've actually heard some pretty amazing things about having a colonoscopy. So I'm oddly looking forward to it, to just see what this experience is like.

[00:38:40] I've heard the drugs are amazing during the process. So we'll see what it's like. We'll see what it's like coming out of that. I don't know. I guess it's a real world thing that people should do once they hit a certain age. Apparently it's 50. Apparently now they're moving that age up to like 45 and up. They're going to start recommending them if you're in high risk areas or whatever it is. Not my, this is not medical advice on this podcast. But yeah, take care of yourself. I'm having a colonoscopy. That's my freak out.

[00:39:10] I like it. I hope it is as good as you think it's going to be. And I know you'll message me afterwards and then you'll be like, that was amazing. Or I don't know what the hype is all about. So, so we'll see. But that's what we're freaking out about this week. The show notes have all the articles and links from today's conversation. If frequency is a regular part of your week, a quick review goes a really long way. Subscribe wherever you're listening and share this with one person who is interested in what we talked about. Thanks to Poet Ali for the music. We're back every Monday.

[00:39:40] See you next week and appreciate you being here with us. Let's see, guys. Okay. While I'm feeling dearly, I'm going to have to take my first time to my first chance.