The year the CEO trusted comms, and the year that trust gets tested.

Only 2% of Fortune 1000 comms leaders report falling chief executive confidence. The next test of that trust is the AI claim made in a leader's name.

Michael Reaney  ·  17 August 2026  ·  5 min read

Communications leaders have rarely been more trusted by their chief executives. The Weber Advisory and Gravity Research Confidence Gap study, published 22nd January from a survey of more than 200 Fortune 1000 communications and corporate-affairs leaders, recorded its strongest year yet: only 2% of respondents report falling confidence from their chief executive, down from 13% a year earlier.

However, the same research points to where that trust is likely to be tested next. Gravity Research's president calls it a credibility test for leadership, and locates the risk in the widening gap between what companies say AI will deliver and what stakeholders actually experience.

Two further findings this year suggest why. Teneo's Persuasion with Precision, a poll of 2,004 UK adults, 102 MPs and 502 technology professionals, found that 66% of the technology professionals agree the public would be more worried about AI if it understood what it was capable of, while 64% agree the public debate about AI is often poorly informed. An executive making a confident AI claim is therefore speaking to an audience that already suspects the risks are being understated. Muck Rack's State of AI in PR 2026, drawn from 564 professionals, found that 51% now work under a formal AI use case policy, up from 21% in 2024, while 76% use generative AI. Adoption has run well ahead of the governance beneath it.

Taken together, these findings describe a specific exposure. The tools are widely deployed, the public is sceptical, and the leader's name is on the output. A single AI-assisted claim that proves wrong, or that reads as spin, lands on the executive rather than on the tool.

The practical answer is visible human accountability for whatever goes out under a leader's name: claims that can be proven, a named person who stands behind the text, and executives fluent enough to be precise about AI in public rather than merely confident.

Three questions for whoever owns executive communications:

1. When a statement goes out under the chief executive's name, can the team name the person who stands behind each claim in it?
2. If a journalist asked how a leadership statement was produced, would the answer build trust or cost it?
3. Is the executive fluent enough on AI to be precise in public, or only confident?

Worth reading

• The Digital Omnibus on AI (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744), published in the Official Journal on 24th July and in force from 27th July: it moved the application date for stand-alone high-risk AI systems, HR tools, credit-scoring and the like, from 2nd August 2026 to 2nd December 2027, and to 2nd August 2028 for high-risk systems embedded in products. It did not loosen the transparency side. The Council records the opposite: the grace period for providers to implement transparency solutions for artificially generated content was cut from six months to three, with a new deadline of 2nd December 2026. Teams that read an "AI Act delayed" headline and paused their labelling work are working to the wrong deadline. Council of the EU, press release, 29th June 2026
• V2 Communications, CEO Visibility Report (June; 250 B2B marketing and communications professionals across the US, UK, Australia and Canada, run with Researchscape): executive visibility is now treated as a business requirement rather than a brand exercise. Asked for the main benefit of a visible chief executive, 64% named customer and market trust, ahead of investor and partner confidence at 47% and media presence and thought leadership at 46%. GlobeNewswire, 9th June 2026
• Golin, CEO Impact Index (same period): the counterweight. Chief executives who pulled back on public engagement lost close to 3 trillion earned impressions year on year, yet 68% of chief executives had a social or policy issue shape how they were perceived, and leaders seen as reactive watched negative sentiment more than double. Exposure without a steady voice can cost more than it earns. Ragan, By the Numbers: Golin CEO Index 2026
• Ragan, 2026 Communications Benchmark Report (more than 800 communicators worldwide): 50% are using AI to create more content, 29% are reinvesting the time saved into strategy and 24% into measurement and analysis, and only 5% say AI is reducing headcount, so teams are redeploying rather than shrinking. Yet just one quarter of teams meaningfully align communications KPIs with business goals. The tooling is arriving ahead of the measurement. Ragan, 2026 Communications Benchmark Report

The moves

• Sotheby's named Natasha Le Bel chief communications officer on 5th August, moving over from rival auction house Christie's, where she was global head of communications.
• The Executive Leadership Council appointed Crystal L. Brown chief engagement, communications and marketing officer on 23rd June, folding all three functions under one seat.
• Ipsos named Marion Beyret chief communications officer (announced 5th June), moving from leading communications and public affairs for Stellantis in Europe to the top communications seat at the global research group.
• Assurant appointed Kelli Ertel chief communications officer and chief of staff on 23rd July, folding global brand strategy and events into the communications remit and adding a seat on the management committee.