Originally published on linkedin.com
What the Edelman Trust at Work Special Report tells us about leadership, employee influence and the human side of organisational change.
If there's one thing I've learned over the last 11 years helping organisations build employee influence, it's that you can give employees all the tools, training and content in the world but it doesn't necessarily mean they'll use them.
Sometimes the problem isn't about skills. Sometimes it's about confidence, maybe motivation.
If employees don't feel comfortable speaking up internally, why would we expect them to become influential voices externally?
That's why the findings from the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust at Work caught my attention.
The report surveyed more than 10,000 employees across 10 countries and paints an alarming picture of trust in the workplace. Here are my takeaways:
What interested me most wasn't simply the decline in trust.
It was what these findings mean for organisations that are now trying to encourage their people to become more VISIBLE, INFLUENTIAL and TRUSTED.
Now that organisations realise that human voice is what gets cited and mentioned in AI engines, they're hitting a wall when it comes to activating those voices.
Here's why (warning, it's a long one).
TL:DR Employee influence starts with trust but if employees don't feel trusted or comfortable speaking up internally, how can we expect them to become influential voices externally? The 2026 Edelman Trust at Work Special Report highlights a growing disconnect between leaders and employees. I explore why leadership behaviour, cultural permission and peer confidence matter just as much as training and technology when building employee influence at scale and why, for some organisations, the work needs to start internally first.
If employees can't speak up internally, why would they speak up externally?
One of the findings that stood out was the trust disconnect between leaders and employees. According to Edelman:
That's a 33-percentage-point gap. (Page 14)
Now think about that in the context of EMPLOYEE INFLUENCE.
Organisations want their employees to share expertise, express opinions, participate in industry conversations and become trusted voices in their markets.
What happens when those same employees don't feel comfortable speaking up in a meeting?
I've come across organisations where deeply hierarchical cultures make this incredibly difficult.
Then we introduce an employee advocacy platform, deliver training and expect everyone to start sharing their opinions publicly.
It doesn't work like that.
Of course, not every organisation struggling with employee participation has a culture problem.
In highly regulated industries, for example, employees may feel genuinely motivated but concerned about compliance or reputational risk.
That's a different challenge and requires a different response.
Where the issue IS cultural, training alone won't fix it.
You might see progress but not necessarily at the pace or scale the organisation expects.
You can't build a culture of employee influence without creating the conditions for people to participate.
That starts with leadership.
Our own research into employee influence across 860 organisations found that leadership participation line has a significant relationship with wider employee activity.
In particular, active VP and Director-level leaders were associated with a 4x difference in employee participation - but leadership participation isn't just about posting on LinkedIn.
It's about how leaders show up.
For me, this is where EXECUTIVE INFLUENCE becomes interesting.
There's a risk when leaders outsource their online presence to the point that their personality disappears.
Their posts become polished corporate statements and they sound nothing like the person employees meet in the office or hear at a town hall.
I haven't measured the impact of that disconnect, but I believe it's a credibility risk.
If the person you experience internally doesn't match the person you see online, which version do you trust?
Leadership visibility and leadership credibility are not the same thing.
If leaders want employees to develop their own voices, they need to demonstrate what that looks like.
Not by being perfect. By being human.
This is probably the biggest lesson I've learned from running employee influence programmes.
Leadership matters enormously but leaders aren't always the people who inspire employees to take their first step.
Quite often, it's their peers.
Think about an Account Executive who's reluctant to start posting on LinkedIn.
They might see their CRO publishing every week. That's useful. It demonstrates that the behaviour is encouraged and 'permission' is there.
Hearing another Account Executive explain how nervous they were about their first post, what happened afterwards and how it helped them start a customer conversation?
That's relatable and in my experience, incredibly powerful.
It's why I've always believed in identifying employees who are already demonstrating positive behaviours and making their experiences visible to others. We call them champions, surfacing stories of progress:
Instead, surfacing stories of progress.
Confidence builds over time - people are often inspired by seeing someone like themselves make progress.
This is how you start building momentum - by creating curiosity and helping people see what's possible.
Edelman also found that 59% of employees worry about being monitored by their employer without their consent. (Page 16)
That should make anyone responsible for employee advocacy or influence programmes think.
As more employee advocacy platforms move from 'active employees sharing' to 'employees authenticated on the platform' we need to be clear with employees what that means.
Essentially, an employee authenticating their profile on an advocacy platform means the platform can monitor ALL posts - whether shared from the platform or natively in LinkedIn.
I personally believe that data is incredibly valuable. However, we need to be clear with employees about WHY we're collecting it and HOW we're using it.
In my experience, clients want to understand where INFLUENCE already exists, where it's GROWING and where they should INVEST their support.
I've NEVER encountered clients wanting to use that intelligence negatively but I do think there's an important principle here.
Influence data should be useful to the employee, not just the organisation.
If somebody is already building their network, sharing expertise or engaging with industry conversations, help THEM UNDERSTAND what's working.
That's very different from giving somebody an SSI target and telling them to post 3 times a week. Personally, I've never agreed with that approach.
It turns something that should be intrinsically motivated into performance obligation.
When you start forcing behaviours, you risk losing the authenticity you're trying to build.
Not everyone will want to become an influential voice...and that's absolutely fine.
This is a question I've been asked since 2014 - check out my blog about who owns 'Social Business' (the phrase we used before employee advocacy became a thing).
Over 10 years later we're still asking the same question!
Marketing? HR? Communications? Sales?
I've seen successful programmes led by CMOs, communications directors and digital/social media leaders.
What strikes me is that the job title isn't necessarily what matters!
It's the person who sees the opportunity and has the DETERMINATION to make it work.
That's because they believe in what employee influence can achieve and are prepared to push through the resistance to make it happen.
Because there WILL be resistance at ALL LEVELS of the organisation.
That person leading the charge needs to bring others with them.
I believe this is where marketing and HR have a particularly important opportunity.
MARKETING understands the market, the brand, target accounts and commercial objectives.
HR understands the employee experience, engagement, development and cultural conditions that influence participation.
Neither has the complete picture.
For me, the strongest programmes are those that connect the HUMAN MOTIVATION to participate with the COMMERCIAL OUTCOMES the organisation is trying to achieve.
A few years back I wrote a 'Dear HR letter' from marketing outlining why the partnership needs to work for a better human experience to advocacy. I believe it's still relevant today.
The Edelman report reinforces something I've believed for a long time.
Building employee influence isn't simply a question of giving people the skills to become digitally visible.
It's about understanding what MOTIVATES them, what HOLDS THEM BACK and what gives them the CONFIDENCE to participate.
This is about habits and behaviours, not tools and tech.
The report found that 67% of employees who had a good transformation experience said being empowered to adapt on their own terms contributed to that experience. (Page 26)
That's an important reminder. People need agency AND permission.
They also need to understand the VALUE of what they're doing.
Technology can help us identify opportunities.
Data can help us understand behaviours.
AI can help us develop skills.
Ultimately, we're working with people!
If we want to build INFLUENCE AT SCALE, we need to spend as much time understanding the HUMAN barriers to participation as we do MEASURING the activity.
The full report can be found here: https://www.edelman.com/trust/2026/trust-barometer/special-report-work
NEW BOOK: The Employee Influencer out on December 3rd. Written by myself and my co-author Susan Emerick, published by Kogan Page Marketing Insights
Source: 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust at Work. Survey of 10,018 respondents across 10 countries, August 2026. Individual findings use the market and respondent subsets specified in the report.
Tribal Impact leadership participation research: 860 organisations. Add the published research link and precise methodology before publication.