New research shows investors increasingly judge executives by the gap between what they say and what their organisations do. As reputation becomes a more volatile and valuable asset, communicators face a growing challenge: helping leaders ensure their actions support the stories they tell.

A bout of heat exhaustion became two months of tests, treatment and uncertainty – and brought work to a complete stop. I reflect on illness, the NHS paradox, stepping away from commitments, and what it means to begin looking outward again.

Shadow AI isn't simply an employee compliance problem. New research from LexisNexis suggests it can signal a gap between how people are expected to work and the governance around that work. For communication leaders, that raises bigger questions about trust, competence and accountability.

AI detection encourages us to ask who – or what – wrote something. But perhaps that's the wrong question. What matters more is the thinking, judgement and accountability behind the words – and whether they're worth reading.

People don't want AI agents. They want outcomes. That simple distinction may explain why agentic AI excites Silicon Valley while leaving most consumers cold – and it carries an important lesson for organisations too.

Podcasting 2.0 prompted an interesting discussion on the latest FIR podcast. But the conversation quickly moved beyond technology to something more enduring: the questions communicators should ask whenever a new technology promises to change how we work.

Andy Burnham's team wants to rewrite the UK's AI strategy – away from partnership with US tech, towards sovereignty and workers. The real story isn't who's right. It's how fast a governing party can build two entirely different vocabularies for the same technology.

AI is changing how organisations are discovered and understood. But it isn't creating a new reputation. It's interpreting the one they've already earned. That's a distinction communicators should be thinking about.