Employee Login

Enter your login information to access the intranet

Enter your credentials to access your email

Reset employee password

Article

Escaping the Pendulum: Building a Durable Strategy in Turbulent Times 

June 2, 2026

Today, organizations are operating at the intersection of business, policy, politics and culture. At any given moment, one of these forces may outweigh the others, but none can be managed in isolation, and shifts in one increasingly create second- and third-order effects across the others.

The current operating environment in the United States is defined by sustained political volatility, shifting regulatory direction, technological acceleration and heightened stakeholder scrutiny. Cultural expectations are fragmenting, and economic pressure is building across sectors, with many organizations preparing for potential restructuring, cost actions and workforce disruption. This all sits on top of a burgeoning affordability crisis.

While publicly available data may paint a slightly prettier picture if you squint, the prevailing zeitgeist is a mix of anxiety and pessimism.

Earlier this year, FleishmanHillard’s Global Executive Advisory and TRUE Global Intelligence teams released License to Lead, a comprehensive global study that includes and compares the opinions of 1,550 business and political leaders and 4,000 engaged consumers — a new, modern definition that identifies proactive individuals who have recently taken multiple, tangible actions tied to a company’s values and reputation. Now, we are looking more closely at the market-by-market findings and how the results illuminate the new Modern Communications playbook required to win in today’s moment.

The results of the global survey demonstrated a clear and growing constraint on leadership: while stakeholders recognize the need for companies to adapt, they are far less willing to tolerate poorly explained or inconsistent change. In the United States, those dynamics are significantly more pronounced.

As multiple major forces converge — the 2026 midterms, AI-driven workforce realignment, intensifying geopolitical competition and economic fragmentation — the conditions for a reckoning are becoming clear, and many companies are not prepared.

What many organizations fail to recognize is that their reputational vulnerability is not simply a function of the positions they have taken, the programs they have changed or the cultural debates they have entered or avoided. It is the result of repeated, and often poorly contextualized, swings in direction that have created stakeholder confusion and eroded trust.

Over the past five years, companies have shifted positions on social issues, policy stances, sustainability commitments and political engagement — often dramatically. Some of these moves were grounded in conviction. Others were responsive to legitimate stakeholder pressure. But many were reactive to changing administrations, misread consumer sentiment or followed the political and cultural momentum of the moment.

Adaptability, of course, is now table stakes. In fact, 51% of engaged consumers say the ability to adapt quickly to change will be the most important leadership capability over the next decade. But adaptability without coherence is not seen as strength. It is seen as instability.

Companies are not being given a free pass. Increasingly, they are perceived not as leaders guided by enduring principles, but as weathervanes — chasing culture, chasing power and chasing whoever holds the microphone at any given moment.

The Pendulum Problem

When a company loudly commits to a social position, philanthropy program or workforce commitment and then quietly retreats when the political climate shifts, it does not go unnoticed. In fact, our research shows that 98% of engaged consumers say they are actively monitoring corporate follow-through, and nearly half (48%) say that inconsistent or conflicting messages from company leadership greatly decrease their confidence.

This is the reputational trap that most companies have not anticipated: stakeholders will accept a company’s need to adapt if it is properly explained. What they will not forgive is the sense that a company’s values are for sale — that leadership convictions shift with political winds rather than enduring principles.

This vulnerability is directly connected to what determines whether a company has the “License to Lead” — the stakeholder permission to execute strategy, navigate change and pivot when necessary, without losing legitimacy. The research is stark: stakeholders grant confidence based on demonstrated integrity (76%) and accountability (74%), and they rank ethical behavior (24%) and clear communication (21%) as the highest factors in determining whether a company has the “right to lead.”

A company that swings drastically from position to position or appears to chase political power rather than authentic values forfeits that permission. Here’s why: stakeholders do not trust a leader whose compass keeps spinning. If a company’s stated values and policy positions are contingent on who is in power, employees question whether to invest their loyalty. Investors worry about the stability of leadership judgment. Customers wonder whether they can rely on the company’s commitments. Policymakers lose confidence in the company as a credible partner.

And when the next political shift comes — and it will — that company will have no reservoir of stakeholder trust to draw from. Most executives are also vastly overestimating how well they are bringing stakeholders along. The consequences can be dire.

The credibility gap is already visible: just 11% of U.S. engaged consumers are very optimistic about large companies’ ability to address major challenges, and only 10% have “a lot” of confidence that large corporate leaders will act in the best interests of society. When confidence is lost, the response is not abstract. In the past 12 months, 64% of U.S. engaged consumers stopped buying or significantly reduced spending with a company, 49% switched to a competitor’s products or services and 46% privately advised friends or family against the company after a company’s action caused them to lose confidence. The upcoming 2026 midterm elections will test corporate authenticity and consistency. Companies with positions that shift significantly based on political circumstances may face questions about the credibility of their commitments. Conversely, companies that have done the harder work of building genuine stakeholder alignment around enduring principles, explaining the “why” behind their positions and engaging stakeholders in understanding the tradeoffs will have the permission to navigate the shifting landscape without reputational damage.

License to Lead Facilitates Adaptability Because It Is Built on a Durable Reputation

The companies that earn and retain their License to Lead through political and cultural volatility are those that take clear positions rooted in enduring principles. They project clarity about who they are, grounded in something deeper than the current political moment.

Many companies are struggling to navigate volatility with consistency, and the reputational risks of getting that wrong are growing. This goes directly to credibility, stakeholder trust and long-term resilience. The past several years suggest that the pendulum of corporate response has swung too widely.

At FleishmanHillard, we help organizations narrow that swing by becoming more disciplined, resilient and credible under pressure. Our findings demonstrate that stakeholder confidence – before, during and after critical moments – is entirely within a company’s control. By grounding decisions in authentic values and genuine stakeholder engagement, reputation becomes not a liability to manage, but an enabling force.

Article

FleishmanHillard Releases U.S. ‘License to Lead’ Report, Revealing Sharp Confidence Gap Between Executives and Stakeholders 

New U.S. findings show stakeholder confidence and leadership credibility increasingly shape how much latitude companies have to adapt, as engaged consumers express deeper pessimism than global peers.

As political volatility, shifting regulation, technological acceleration and economic pressure reshape the U.S. business landscape, new U.S. research from FleishmanHillard finds that the central leadership challenge is no longer simply setting strategy. It is maintaining the confidence and permission needed to execute when strategies must evolve.

While stakeholders recognize the need for companies to adapt, they are far less willing to tolerate poorly explained or inconsistent change. As multiple major forces converge — the 2026 midterms, AI-driven workforce realignment, intensifying geopolitical competition and economic fragmentation — the conditions for a reckoning are becoming clear, and many companies are not prepared.

“Uncertainty is no longer episodic. It is the operating environment,” said Rachel Catanach, Senior Partner and Global Managing Director, Corporate Affairs. “What this research shows is that stakeholders understand why companies need to adapt. But in the U.S., the bar is even higher for how leaders communicate, align and explain those decisions.”

The report, titled “License to Lead: Escaping the Pendulum — Building a Durable Strategy in Turbulent Times,” is based on U.S. findings from FleishmanHillard’s global survey of 5,550 respondents, including a U.S. sample of 800 engaged consumers, 350 executives and 40 policy stakeholders, executed by FleishmanHillard’s TRUE Global Intelligence. The findings reveal a sharper U.S. gap between how leaders assess their own performance and how stakeholders experience corporate leadership during periods of change.

Even well-founded pivots can erode confidence when they appear disconnected from a durable direction. Escaping cyclical swings requires leaders to anchor change in clear, durable principles, visible alignment and a consistent explanation of why the path is evolving.

“When change is constant, stakeholder support is built through how leaders explain decisions, align internally and show accountability in real time,” said Michael Moroney, Senior Partner and Managing Director, Corporate Affairs, The Americas. “The U.S. data shows that consumers are not rejecting change. They are rejecting whiplash, poorly explained pivots, inconsistent messages and gaps between what companies say and what they do.”

Key findings include:

  • Unpredictability is more pronounced in the U.S., and adaptability is viewed as a defining leadership skill. Eighty-seven percent of U.S. engaged consumers agree that the business environment is more unpredictable and disruptive than it was three years ago, and 45% strongly agree — outpacing the global engaged consumer average of 32% who strongly agree. Half of U.S. engaged consumers say the ability to adapt quickly will matter most for business leaders’ success over the next decade.
  • Stakeholders accept strategic change, but expectations of leadership behavior have risen. U.S. engaged consumers recognize the challenging dynamics business leaders face, but they expect change to be explained and grounded in consistent leadership behavior. Ninety-eight percent say it is important for companies to explain why a decision is made, and 49% say inconsistent or conflicting messages from company leadership greatly decrease their confidence.
  • Executives and stakeholders view corporate readiness very differently. U.S. executives and policy stakeholders are far more optimistic than engaged consumers about large companies’ ability to lead through disruption. Fifty-two percent of U.S. executives and 50% of U.S. policy stakeholders are very optimistic that leaders of large companies will address major challenges in the next decade, compared with just 11% of U.S. engaged consumers. Only 10% of U.S. engaged consumers have “a lot” of confidence that large corporate leaders will act in the best interest of society, compared with 49% of U.S. executives.
  • Erosion of confidence has direct commercial consequences. U.S. engaged consumers are more likely than the global average to react with their wallets when confidence is lost. In the past 12 months, after a company’s action caused them to lose confidence, 64% stopped buying or significantly reduced spending, 49% switched to a competitor, 46% privately advised friends or family against the company and 26% publicly criticized the company.

Integrity and accountability now outweigh competence alone. When things go wrong, U.S. engaged consumers are more likely than global consumers to prioritize integrity, honesty and accountability over competence in their business leaders. Eighty-three percent say integrity and honesty are very important for earning their confidence, while 82% emphasize the importance of accountability when things go wrong. In contrast, only 73% cite competence and decision quality as critical. Demonstrated ethical behavior is the top factor U.S. engaged consumers say gives a company the right to lead during uncertainty.

A New Executive Playbook

The findings point to a leadership model that is both urgently needed and largely within organizations’ control. Companies that retain the confidence to move through uncertainty simplify their strategic narrative, enforce leadership alignment, communicate consistently and with integrity, explain the rationale behind difficult decisions and engage stakeholders without relying on broad or aspirational shortcuts.

“When these conditions are met, reputation becomes an enabling force rather than a constraint,” said Catanach. “Stakeholders are more willing to grant leaders the latitude to adapt, absorb uncertainty and continue moving forward even when outcomes are not fully known.”

The research also underscores the evolving role of corporate affairs as an integrated leadership infrastructure. High-performing organizations rely on corporate affairs to translate complexity into clarity, anticipate friction and understand where stakeholders will grant flexibility and where limits remain.

As disruption becomes an enduring condition rather than a temporary shock, the study concludes that leadership success will depend less on minimizing change and more on sustaining legitimacy while managing it.

About the Research

The “License to Lead” study was conducted by FleishmanHillard’s Global Executive Advisory and TRUE Global Intelligence teams. The global survey includes 5,550 respondents across 15 markets, comparing the perspectives of 1,550 business and political leaders and 4,000 engaged consumers. The U.S. edition draws on responses from 800 engaged consumers, 350 executives and 40 policy stakeholders.

About FleishmanHillard

FleishmanHillard is a global strategic communications consultancy combining corporate affairs and brand impact expertise at scale. Following the integration of Porter Novelli, FH now serves clients across health and life sciences, technology, financial services, retail and consumer, food and agriculture, manufacturing and energy and government and public sector. The firm’s competitive advantage combines deep sector expertise with proprietary intelligence (TRUE Global Intelligence), the industry’s leading data and AI infrastructure, and Global Executive Advisory, a strategic network of over 50 senior advisers who help C-suite leaders navigate complex situations and transformative change. FleishmanHillard was named PRovoke Media’s Data-Driven Agency of the Year 2026, the 2023 PRWeek U.S. Agency of the Year; 2022 and 2023 PRWeek U.S. Outstanding Extra-Large Agency of the Year; and 2023 Campaign US PR Agency of the Year. FleishmanHillard is part of Omnicom Public Relations.

Article

The Tech Industry’s License to Lead Problem: How Tech Companies Made Themselves Vulnerable to the AI and SaaS Apocalypse Doubt

March 4, 2026
By Michelle Mulkey

Last week, a short-seller’s Substack moved markets. AI companies were drawing red lines with the U.S. government while also backing away from brand promises. And then rethinking after stakeholder backlash. Earnings reports reinforced an ever-widening gap between the strength of their outlook and the stock price. What is going on?

Tech companies have masterfully sold AI capabilities to their customer base. What they haven’t done is bring their other stakeholders—investors, employees, policymakers and the broader public—along on a coherent story about what it all means or why it matters to them.

The B2B Trap

For too long, the B2B technology industry has been plagued by a self-inflicted wound: the product-as-brand trap, an approach that fundamentally misunderstands the complexity of the modern B2B buying cycle. Driven by engineering-led cultures and the relentless pressure of quarterly product cycles, tech companies have overwhelmingly prioritized the “what” over the “why.” And, as a result, they built their entire communications infrastructure around a single audience: enterprise buyers. When AI emerged as a transformative technology with profound implications for jobs, the economy, regulation and society, tech companies simply applied the same playbook: speaking technical hype to those with purchase authority.

This worked when the only stakeholder that mattered was the customer signing the contract. But it no longer does. Today, a B2B product message isn’t the same thing as a corporate narrative that builds belief and drives competitive differentiation in the minds of investors, talent, regulators and society. While tech companies optimized sales messaging, they surrendered the authority to shape how stakeholders understand the broader implications of their innovations. Investors, employees and the public have filled that void with their own narratives. Most of them anxious.

The License to Lead Data

This vulnerability is directly rooted in abandoning what our License to Lead research, first released in January, reveals about how to create stakeholder confidence beyond the tech buyer. The data is unambiguous: stakeholders don’t extend confidence based on technical prowess alone. They extend it when companies demonstrate ethical behavior (24%), clear communication (21%), integrity (76%), and accountability (74%). Tech companies have leaned entirely into capability claims while neglecting the foundational work of stakeholder engagement and transparency.

Worse, they’ve created a credibility liability. When employees worry about job displacement and hear only technical defensiveness, confidence erodes. When investors question AI’s ROI or how SaaS fits into an AI future and get more hype and hyperbole, belief wanes. When society hears about AI’s economic impact and starts to experience its energy impact, skepticism hardens into doubt and resistance, which is exactly what we’re seeing in current market valuations.

The Path Forward

The good news: It’s not too late. The companies that shift from product-centric hype to an authentic corporate storytelling that own the “why,” engages honestly about implications and drives to clear takeaways about differentiation and impact will be the ones that regain and retain stakeholder confidence, investor trust and ultimately, their License to Lead in this critical moment.

The research on License to Lead presents an urgent corrective that demands a fundamental shift for the tech industry. Communications leaders have to reposition themselves as the builders of stakeholder confidence and the architects of strategic clarity.

Article

License To Lead: A Corporate Leadership Global Study

January 7, 2026

In an era of unprecedented disruption, executives face a paradox: while they understand the strategic direction their organizations need to pursue, they often lack the stakeholder capital required to execute bold change. This is the central insight of a new global study on corporate leadership, and it helps explain why so many well-conceived strategies stall before gaining traction.

The research identifies what top-performing companies are doing differently. They possess what we call a License to Lead, the stakeholder confidence that allows them to innovate and adapt without losing legitimacy or reputation.

Disruption is no longer an excuse for poor performance. It is simply the operating environment. The organizations that will thrive are those that treat corporate affairs not as a discrete function, but as an integrated leadership operating system—one that continuously converts complexity into clarity and builds the reputational capital needed to sustain confidence through inevitable change.

FleishmanHillard has developed a comprehensive playbook based on these global responses to help leaders navigate this new reality. Organizations looking to close the gap between narrative and operations can access the full License to Lead report below:

Click above to download ‘License To Lead’