Confronting Say-Do Gaps: Insights from the Communication Leadership Summit

28 October 2025 Reading Time: 4 minutes

Mike Klein:

At the inaugural Communication Leadership Summit last month in Brussels, I participated in a discussion about the pervasiveness of “say-do gaps” in organizations, which brought together seasoned communicators from across Europe and beyond—agency veterans, in-house practitioners, sector specialists, consultants, and industry association representatives. 

The diversity of perspectives was remarkable, yet one truth cut across every background and context.

“There are always say-do gaps in organizations.” 

The room knew it. From the industry specialist dealing with overpromising startups to the internal comms expert uncomfortable with external promises that didn’t match internal culture, every communicator there had lived it. Yet we still act surprised when leaders don’t behave exactly as their corporate values and priorities suggest they should.

We Don’t Control What We Think We Control

During our discussion, I highlighted a limitation that most communicators refuse to acknowledge: we have far more influence over what leaders say than what they actually do. This isn’t a professional failure—it’s the reality of organizational power structures.

But we waste energy trying to control the uncontrollable instead of maximizing our influence where we actually have leverage. We can measure gaps, document them, and coach leaders through better decision-making frameworks. We can’t force them do the right thing.

The Measurement Challenge That Divided the Room

The conversation got heated when we discussed measurement. One communicator shared how their organization measures trust in senior leaders through employee surveys, with results “through the floor” regarding whether employees believe what leaders say. Leadership’s response? “Well, what should we do?”

Others in the room had different experiences. 

Someone from a works council (a body which gives employee representatives oversight of certain business decisions) described successfully challenging leadership with data, while another noted how survey questions get subtly modified each year “to fit a certain narrative”—with the real issues only emerging in the open comment sections.

The tension was productive: some believed in confronting gaps directly with hard data, others advocated for more collaborative approaches. Both perspectives had merit, but they agreed on one thing—the status quo of ignoring measurable gaps isn’t sustainable.

Simple open-ended questions reveal enormous gaps quickly: “What are the top three priorities facing the organization?” Compare leadership responses with employee responses. 

Also, look at Google reviews and Glassdoor ratings. The patterns are unmistakable.

The Ethics Gray Zone That United Us

Despite our different backgrounds—from multinational corporations to sector associations, from agencies to in-house teams—we found common ground in the ethical challenges we face. 

Most organizations won’t tell outright lies, but there’s a vast gray area where most say-do gaps live: exaggeration, misrepresentation, deliberate omission.

One communicator captured what many felt: being “uncomfortable about the promises they were making externally, knowing what the actual culture was like within the organization.” 

Another described the challenge of translating enterprise-level messages for shop floor workers who respond with “I don’t care—why is this relevant for me?”

Someone from an industry association brought a unique perspective: when individual companies overpromise on delivery timelines, the entire sector suffers credibility damage. 

Their insight resonated across industries—our individual communication choices have collective consequences.

Trust Is About Consistency, Not Virtue

Here’s a perspective that might make some uncomfortable: 

I can trust certain leaders to do stupid and irrational things every day because that’s what they’ve consistently done. Trust isn’t just about virtue—it’s about predictability.

The challenge is getting virtuous people to behave consistently and getting consistent people to align with organizational values. 

What We All Agreed Actually Works

Despite our different perspectives on measurement, ethics, and gender dynamics, the room converged on practical frameworks that transcend context. Someone shared a five-question test for any communication decision: Is it legal? Ethical? Morally acceptable? Defensible? Does it make business sense? Others suggested adding “Is it clear?” and “Is it transparent?”

The coaching approach gained broad support across different organizational cultures. Instead of confronting leaders about gaps, several communicators had success with questions like “What would happen if we did this?” or “Would your daughter understand this change?” The insight that resonated: make them think it was their idea.

One participant shared how they successfully connected company values to individual and team values through workshops, while others emphasized the power of simple admission when mistakes happen. The consensus wasn’t on specific tactics, but on the principle of building trust through consistency rather than pursuing the impossible goal of perfection.

And sometimes the most trust-building action is admitting mistakes quickly and clearly, even for minor issues.

The Gender Reality That Sparked Debate

An uncomfortable truth emerged that divided perspectives across gender lines. Several women in the room described being labeled “difficult” when raising concerns about say-do gaps, while men raising identical concerns were seen as providing valuable insight.

The response was fascinating. 

Some male participants immediately acknowledged this dynamic, while others questioned whether it was truly about gender versus communication style or organizational politics. A few women shared strategies they’d developed—making male leaders think solutions were their ideas, or building alliances before raising difficult questions.

The debate was productive precisely because it wasn’t uniform. 

We didn’t reach consensus, but we did reach clarity about the different realities people navigate. The takeaway wasn’t that everyone faces identical challenges, but that we need multiple strategies for multiple contexts.

What You Can Actually Do About Say-Do Gaps

1. Document the gaps with simple, open-ended questions
2. Ask better questions using coaching frameworks
3. Build internal networks to get early warning of emerging gaps
4. Focus on consistency rather than perfection
5. Make gaps defensible rather than trying to eliminate them

The Bottom Line

Say-do gaps aren’t communication problems—they’re organizational realities. Our job isn’t to eliminate them but to make them more honest, more defensible, and less damaging to trust.

We do this by abandoning the fantasy that organizations should be perfectly consistent and embracing the messier reality of helping imperfect leaders navigate competing demands more transparently.

The say-do gap isn’t going anywhere. But with the right approach, we can make it a source of genuine leadership rather than organizational cynicism.

+++

Mike Klein is Editor-in-Chief of Strategic and was one of the hosts of the Communication Leadership Summit.  

Join us for the next Summit, returning to Brussels on 17 April.

Written by: Editor