Leading without certainty: Why communication must continue after the message is delivered

Executive Roundtable | June 2026

I ran my Executive Roundtable on “Leading without certainty: Psychological safety in times of rapid change” again in June 2026, following the strong interest in the first session.

A different group of senior people leaders joined this second conversation, bringing experiences from different organisations, countries and leadership environments. While the central challenge remained the same, the discussion opened up new perspectives on what psychological safety requires in practice.

One message came through particularly strongly: organisations cannot create psychological safety through communication structures alone.

Town halls, newsletters, surveys and leadership updates all have a role to play. Their impact depends on what happens next—how leaders translate organisational messages for their teams, whether employees can ask questions, and whether leaders remain present when uncertainty continues after the formal announcement.

The conversation showed that communication during change needs to become an ongoing process of dialogue, explanation and sensemaking.

Leaders cannot rely on communication alone

Most organisations have established channels for keeping employees informed. They organise town halls, distribute leadership updates, run engagement surveys and create opportunities for feedback.

These mechanisms are useful, but they do not automatically create psychological safety.

Employees still need to understand what an announcement means for their own work, their team and their future. A message that appears clear at organisational level may raise new questions once people begin considering its practical consequences.

This is where the role of the direct leader becomes critical.

Leaders need to translate broad organisational messages into meaningful conversations. They need to explain the context, invite questions and return to the subject as the situation develops. They also need to be available after the initial communication, when employees have had time to process what they heard.

Delivering the message is only the beginning.

In the absence of information, people create their own narratives

When people do not have enough information, they rarely leave the gap empty. They try to make sense of what is happening through assumptions, past experiences and informal conversations.

Several participants described situations in which rumours and unofficial interpretations became more influential than formal communication. Once these narratives begin circulating, they can create anxiety and confusion that is difficult to correct.

This does not mean leaders should communicate before they have anything meaningful to say. It does mean they should recognise that silence also communicates.

Even when definitive answers are unavailable, leaders can provide context. They can explain what is currently known, what remains unresolved, who is involved in the decision-making process and when employees can expect another update.

Creating opportunities for questions early can also reveal where people are confused or drawing conclusions that leadership had not anticipated.

Leadership presence matters as much as leadership messaging

Important announcements often receive significant preparation. Leaders consider the wording, the timing and the communication channels. Much less attention may be given to their visibility after the announcement has been made.

This is precisely when employees often need them most.

Questions emerge over time. People compare interpretations with colleagues. Concerns that were not immediately expressed begin to surface. Managers may also realise that they do not yet know how to answer the questions coming from their teams.

Participants described leadership presence as an essential part of psychological safety during change. Employees need to see that leaders are willing to remain in the conversation, including when the questions are difficult or emotions are strong.

Being present does not require having every answer. It requires being approachable, listening carefully and staying engaged while the organisation works through uncertainty.

People need different ways to speak up

One communication channel will never work equally well for everyone.

Some employees are comfortable asking questions during a town hall. Others prefer a private conversation with their manager. Some will contribute openly in a group, while others need an anonymous option before they feel able to express a concern.

Cultural background, personality, hierarchy and previous experiences within the organisation can all influence how safe it feels to speak.

Psychological safety therefore requires a range of channels. These may include group discussions, one-to-one conversations, anonymous feedback, written questions and smaller facilitated sessions.

Providing different options is not simply a matter of communication preference. It determines whose concerns and ideas become visible to the organisation.

When only the most confident or vocal employees participate, leaders receive an incomplete picture of what people are experiencing.

Feedback becomes meaningful when ownership is shared

Engagement surveys and feedback processes can create frustration when employees share their views but see no visible outcome.

Over time, repeated requests for input without clear follow-through can reduce trust rather than strengthen it. Employees may conclude that the organisation is gathering feedback for appearance’s sake or that nothing will change regardless of what they say.

The roundtable discussion explored a more useful approach based on shared ownership.

Some issues require organisational action. Others can be addressed within a team, while certain concerns may be within the individual employee’s influence. Helping people understand these distinctions can make feedback more constructive and create more realistic expectations.

Shared ownership does not mean transferring responsibility away from leadership. Leaders still need to acknowledge what they have heard, explain what will happen next and be clear when a requested change is not possible.

It does mean treating employees as participants in improving the working environment, rather than as people who submit problems for someone else to solve.

Employee voice and leadership accountability need to coexist

Psychological safety is sometimes misunderstood as a situation in which everyone must agree or every decision must become democratic.

The leaders in the roundtable described a more balanced relationship between employee voice and leadership responsibility.

Employees should have meaningful opportunities to contribute, raise concerns and share relevant knowledge. Leaders should listen carefully and take that input seriously. At the same time, some decisions remain the responsibility of leadership.

Confusion arises when organisations invite participation without explaining how much influence employees will actually have.

Leaders can reduce disappointment by being explicit about the purpose of the conversation. Are they gathering ideas, consulting employees before a decision, asking teams to help design the solution, or communicating a decision that has already been made?

Psychological safety grows when people understand where they can influence an outcome and where leaders remain accountable for making the final decision.

Cultural differences shape how uncertainty is experienced

The discussion also highlighted how strongly culture influences communication during change.

Within international organisations, employees in different countries may respond very differently to the same announcement. In some cultures, people place greater trust in formal leadership communication. In others, informal networks and conversations carry more influence.

Expectations around hierarchy, directness, disagreement and public questioning also vary considerably.

A communication approach that works well in one country may therefore have a very different effect elsewhere. Translating the words is not enough. Leaders need to consider how the message will be interpreted within the local cultural context.

Local leaders play an important role here. They can help the organisation understand how employees are likely to respond, identify potential misunderstandings and adapt the conversation without changing the substance of the message.

This requires space for local judgement rather than assuming one global format will work everywhere.

Trust grows when leaders are honest about uncertainty

Participants repeatedly returned to the importance of honesty.

Employees do not necessarily expect leaders to predict the future accurately. They do expect them to communicate credibly.

Projecting certainty may feel reassuring in the moment, but it can damage trust when the situation changes. Leaders are often more credible when they acknowledge that some questions remain unresolved.

They can create greater clarity by separating three things:

• what is known;
• what is not yet known;
• what will remain stable while the situation develops.

This helps employees understand the boundaries of the uncertainty. It also shows that leaders are willing to navigate the situation alongside their teams rather than presenting an unrealistic picture of control.

Psychological safety starts with leader self-awareness

A leader’s own response to uncertainty shapes how they communicate with others.

Under pressure, some leaders become more controlling. Others withdraw, avoid difficult conversations, react quickly or communicate more frequently without providing greater clarity.

These patterns may be understandable, but they are rarely invisible. Employees notice changes in tone, accessibility and decision-making behaviour.

Leader self-awareness is therefore an important foundation for psychological safety.

Leaders need to recognise what uncertainty triggers in them and how those reactions affect the people around them. A leader who becomes defensive when questioned may discourage employees from speaking up. A leader who avoids conversations may unintentionally increase speculation. A leader who communicates every new development immediately may create confusion rather than reassurance.

The ability to pause, notice these patterns and choose a more deliberate response can significantly change how a team experiences uncertainty.

Leaders set the emotional tone during change

Employees often look to leadership behaviour for cues about how they should interpret a situation.

When leaders appear panicked, defensive or disconnected, concern can spread quickly. When they remain calm, acknowledge the difficulty and treat emerging challenges as part of a learning process, teams are more likely to respond constructively.

This does not mean leaders should suppress genuine concern or perform constant optimism. Employees usually recognise when reassurance is artificial.

A more credible approach combines calmness with honesty. Leaders can acknowledge that a situation is difficult while showing that it can be worked through. They can recognise emotions without amplifying them and demonstrate that uncertainty does not prevent thoughtful action.

The emotional tone leaders create becomes part of the wider organisational response to change.

Culture change happens through behaviour

The roundtable also explored psychological safety in the context of restructuring and culture transformation.

Organisations frequently introduce new structures, values, frameworks and operating models with the intention of changing the culture. These changes may create useful conditions, but structures alone do not determine how people behave.

When everyday leadership practices remain the same, employees experience continuity rather than transformation.

Culture change requires organisations to define the behaviours they want to see and make those behaviours concrete. What should collaboration look like during a difficult decision? How should leaders respond when someone challenges an assumption? What happens when a mistake is raised? Which behaviours are recognised, rewarded or tolerated?

These practical moments shape culture far more powerfully than values statements.

Participants also emphasised that genuine culture change takes time. It requires repeated reinforcement, leadership engagement, training and discussion across several years. A launch campaign may introduce the intention, but everyday behaviour determines whether the change takes hold.

Psychological safety is an ongoing practice

Workshops, surveys, leadership offsites and training programmes can all create momentum. Their value depends on whether they influence what happens afterwards.

Psychological safety needs to remain visible in everyday leadership practices. It is reflected in how meetings are run, how disagreement is handled, how leaders respond to bad news and whether employees see action following their feedback.

It also requires continuous attention because organisational conditions change. New leaders arrive, teams restructure, pressure increases and previously safe environments can become less open.

This makes psychological safety an ongoing leadership responsibility rather than a completed initiative.

What leaders can do now

The June roundtable reinforced eight practical actions for organisations and leadership teams:

1. Create dialogue around important communication. Give employees opportunities to ask questions and discuss what a message means for their work.
2. Remain visible during uncertainty. Leadership presence is particularly important after announcements have been made.
3. Close information gaps early. Provide context before rumours and assumptions become the dominant explanation.
4. Offer several ways to speak up. Use group, individual, written and anonymous channels to include different communication needs.
5. Clarify ownership of solutions. Help employees understand what they can influence, what belongs to the team and what requires organisational action.
6. Be honest about what is known and unknown. Explain what remains stable while further decisions are being made.
7. Translate culture into observable behaviour. Make the desired leadership and employee behaviours visible in everyday situations.
8. Treat psychological safety as a continuing practice. Reinforce it through consistent leadership behaviour over time.

From communication to conversation

The strongest conclusion from this second roundtable was that psychological safety is created through what leaders do around communication.

Employees need information, but they also need context, access and opportunities to make sense of what they hear. They need different ways to raise concerns and clarity about whether their input will influence a decision. They need leaders who remain visible and recognise how their own behaviour shapes the emotional climate around them.

During uncertainty, leadership communication cannot end when the message has been delivered.

The conversation that follows is where trust is strengthened, questions are clarified and psychological safety becomes visible in practice.