The Know

We are working closely with executives to support their workforce comms strategies as we transition to a #Trump White House. Reach out to us for support!

In 2025, the line between internal and external messaging is razor-thin. Today’s workforce — especially younger employees — evaluates your employer brand as critically as consumers assess your public-facing brand. Get it wrong, and you risk losing top talent. Get it right, and you build loyalty, trust, and a competitive advantage. One of the most compelling takeaways from the recent The Conference Board event came from Jessica Kleiman, SVP of Communications at Lennar and a trusted advisor to The Know, who discussed just this. In a standout session on bridging internal and external brand, Jessica shared Lennar’s employer brand transformation — a thoughtful, strategic campaign designed to attract younger, more tech-forward talent to a historically traditional company. Leaders can’t afford to treat internal and external audiences as separate entities anymore. They’re taking in a lot of the same information, sharing the same communications platforms, and responding to the same triggers. And employees now have a louder voice than ever in shaping public perception of the companies they work for. This is exactly why we recommend understanding the objective data around employee sentiment and using it to guide messaging strategy — inside and out. The companies getting it right are those who are listening first, then speaking with clarity and consistency.

Earlier this month, I attended an event with The Conference Board, centered around the state of corporate communications. One message echoed throughout the event — employees are the #1 stakeholder. Again and again, I heard communications and corporate affairs leaders echo the same thing: if you don’t know how your employees feel, you’re flying blind. From DEI strategy to executive positioning, internal trust has become the foundation for external brand credibility. And in an era where disruption to the norm is a constant, maintaining that trust requires real-time insight, not just gut instinct. In this climate, companies need to stay ahead by identifying what matters most to their workforce before issues escalate into attrition, disengagement, or reputational risk. So how are companies actually accomplishing this? - CHROs, CEOs and CCOs are partnering more closely than ever to ensure alignment on values and messaging. - Legal teams are becoming increasingly invested in how changes to internal language land across employee populations. - Companies are choosing internal trust over media impressions, crafting messages for employees first and letting the public narrative follow. Many comms leaders emphasized the rising employee demand for authentic communication. Consistency across leadership voices (backed by data) was cited as critical to building trust during volatile times. And while AI is transforming how teams generate and distribute content, the need for human oversight and emotionally intelligent messaging is more important than ever, especially when addressing sensitive topics. If employees are the key stakeholders in any organization, it’s imperative that their feelings are taken into consideration with each move the company makes. The organizations getting this right are listening to their employees and building a clear strategy around what they hear.

The constantly ping-ponging tariff talk is causing whiplash — and the ripple effects are growing. Across the industries we monitor, 10% of all employee discussion is currently focused on tariffs. That’s a significant share for a policy issue — currently outweighing discussion on other heavy-hitters like immigration, LBGTQIA+ issues and the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. Corporate leaders are starting to foreshadow the impact: - Target and Best Buy have warned of immediate price hikes, particularly on imported goods like groceries and electronics. - Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, cautioned that 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada could severely damage the U.S. auto industry and benefit global competitors. - Brown-Forman (Jack Daniel’s) flagged retaliatory tariffs from Canada as a direct hit to revenue, following bans on U.S.-made liquor. - Pfizer is considering reshoring drug manufacturing, citing long-term risks tied to supply chain volatility. - Henkel says U.S. policy shifts are already hurting its North American business. These aren’t isolated concerns. They’re part of a broader pattern. Employees are bracing for impact, and the economic stress is showing up in internal conversations. Proactive leaders are paying attention — not just to the policy, but to how it’s landing with their people — customers and employees alike. Understanding the emotional and operational toll of macroeconomic shifts helps teams stay aligned, supported, and productive in uncertain times.

Founder Selena Strandberg reflects on how companies can meet the moment in 2025. Must haves: objectivity, authenticity, consistency Thanks to the crew Mixing Board for spotlighting our software!

Following President Trump’s contentious meeting with President Zelensky, workplace discussions about the war in Ukraine are surging. The key question? Not just what’s being said—but who’s saying it and how. Here are some trends we’re seeing over the past week: - Discussion of the war in Ukraine makes up about 10% of the discussions we track. - Across college-educated professionals, sentiment is overwhelmingly negative, with anger being the dominant emotion. - Conversation around the war is disproportionately led by men. - Gen X and Baby Boomers are leading approximately 81% of the discourse, though engagement from Gen Z and Millennials has been on the rise. - White employees and veterans are significantly more likely to discuss the war Why should this matter to companies? In volatile times, what’s happening outside the workplace inevitably seeps into internal culture. Conversations about global conflict don’t stay on news sites—they show up in Slack channels, in break rooms, and on social media. For executive teams, understanding who is engaged and how sentiment is shifting helps reduce friction and anticipate internal challenges before they escalate. With workplace conversations heating up, measuring employee sentiment can be the key to mitigating risk and fostering alignment in an increasingly complex landscape.

Thanks for the shoutout, Eleanor Hawkins! While reading yesterday’s Axios Communicators newsletter, I couldn’t help but see the link between CEO story resonance and the increased usage of LinkedIn as a primary communications platform. The Know is capturing data around corporate statements related to topical, social and workforce issues, and among the topics we’re monitoring—ranging from AI and RTO to immigration and DEI—we’re seeing a big shift in corporate communications strategies. Corporations are shifting their strategies in real time, meeting their audiences where they’re most engaged. - 48% of large enterprises in our database publish public statements on social media related to the issues we track. - Organizations engaging on key issues post an eye-popping 18x more on social than on their owned outlets. - They’re posting to LinkedIn 2.7x more frequently than X. As we see newsrooms shrink and platforms deprioritize news, companies are being more deliberate about where they engage. And right now, executive voices are resonating most on this platform. LinkedIn has become an essential communication tool for executives, cross-pollinating between employee, customer, and media audiences—a rare advantage in today’s fragmented information landscape.

A decade or so ago, I was hit by a car as a pedestrian. I broke my pelvis and wrecked my lower back, then spent three months on medical leave recovering. It was more than a physical crisis—it was a deeply emotional one as well. It forced me into deep reflection—on my work, my purpose, and the impact I wanted to have on the world. It was the single most illuminating moment in my life. It is the reason I became an entrepreneur. At the time, I was working in federal consulting, drawn to the idea of solving big, systemic problems. Here’s the thing about consulting though—you don’t ever get to see the problem solved. You parachute in, deliver a recommendation, then leave. For me, problem solving isn’t satisfying if it’s just an exercise in idea generation. The reward comes from the execution. Turning nothing into something. The 0 to 1. I am a builder who needs to see impact quickly. I spent much of my medical leave brainstorming ideas from my couch, sketching out solutions for problems that nagged at me. My early ideas used machine learning for veterans mental health support and text analysis for matching strong culture-fit candidates to enterprises. As is the case for most founders, my early ideas failed. What stuck with me though from this time was the mindset I was forming: crisis isn’t just something that happens to you—it’s something to face head on, a problem to solve. We can’t often control what happens, but we can control how we react to it. In many ways, we make our own luck. Over the past decade+, our world has only grown more volatile. Political unrest, economic uncertainty, the pandemic, a constantly mutating misinformation crisis. It feels like we’re perpetually stuck navigating a high-stakes moment of massive import. As we all figure out how to respond personally, I’ve made it my mission to help organizations understand the best way to address their stakeholders. My team and I equip leaders with the data they need to navigate complex decisions and drive meaningful communication with confidence. Crises force perspective. They strip away the noise, make priorities clearer, and demand decisive action. My personal moment of crisis changed everything for me. Now, I spend my time helping organizations meet the new global crisis of the moment head on.

I was at Hired back in 2017 when the ICE raids were making headlines. Corporate response then was far different from what it looks like now. At the time, corporations weren’t hesitating to take a public stance on immigration policy. Amazon and Expedia supported legal challenges against restrictive immigration policy. Starbucks pledged to hire 10,000 refugees. Airlines, like American and United, publicly refused to transport migrant children separated from their families. Hired matched donations to an organization supporting immigrant rights, in the wake of the “Muslim Ban.” I definitely remember a surge of pride amongst the employee base, with many employees publicly sharing the announcement and match program to their social media handles. With deportations ramping up again now, we’ve yet to witness corporate engagement. BUT – the silence doesn’t mean companies aren’t paying attention. Quite the contrary – I can confirm many of the largest corporations are closely watching the topic, especially as it pertains to H1B visas, and many are using our machine learning to do so. One key difference between then and now? Employers have not seen an outcry from their employee bases. We have yet to see if this muted employee response will remain. According to our data at The Know, roughly 10-15% of discussion amongst college-educated professionals is supportive of mass deportations. Nearly the same amount expresses fear and concern. This near-even split suggests that employee sentiment may not be quite as one-sided as it once was. (Note: this does vary by audience and industry– this data is generalized). Companies that were vocal are now exercising caution, avoiding statements that could alienate a significant portion of their stakeholders – much less, the President. As deportations ramp up and high-intensity stories hit the news, we may begin to see a shift in employee sentiment. Our data confirms that employees are closely watching the news coming out of the new Administration. Employee reaction is a critical piece to the puzzle if you are an organization watching this topic. The vast majority of corporations we work with view employees as their number one stakeholder – above boards, investors, and even customers.? Understanding the sentiment data will be crucial to timely – and most importantly, authentic – engagement from leaders. The absolute biggest mistake we see is when brand messaging, action, or inaction conflicts with corporate values – especially in the minds of the employees who work there.

As The Know analyzes employee sentiment data around key news events this week, immigration stands out. Approximately 5% of all employee discussion on the topic is considered inflammatory. So what does that mean? As we define it, “inflammatory content” refers to speech that is hate-speech adjacent (think: extreme derogatory content, up to, and including calls for violence). An increase in this sort of conversation can intensify tensions in the workplace and lead to decreased employee engagement and feelings of unrest. Here’s what the data are showing: - Approximately 5% of all employee discussion on immigration across college-educated employees is considered inflammatory, i.e. 1/20 employees referring to immigrants are using rhetoric that borders on hate speech. - Notably, inflammatory content surges to 9% in the IT industry. - Overall, discussion on the topic has a slight leftward tilt, though both pro and anti-immigration stances are prevalent. - Gen Z and Millenials are disproportionately more likely to be talking about immigration as compared to all other socio political topics of discussion. If you employ or manage a large workforce, ignoring the sentiment around immigration could be a critical oversight. In our work at The Know, we hear repeatedly from C-suite execs that there’s a massive tax on productivity and innovation (and even simply hitting corporate goals!) when employees are distracted by discord rather than focusing on their work. Unaddressed tensions can lead to an environment, where employees feel unsafe or unheard, directly impacting morale and productivity. Younger generations are vocal and engaged on this topic. Failing to align workplace culture with their values could result in higher turnover rates, especially among these key demographics. Monitoring risk from emotionally charged or sensitive issues puts you ahead of the curve.