Listening in 2026: Are We Actually Hearing Our Employees… or Just Collecting Their Opinions Like Pokémon?

“Employee listening” has had a serious glow-up in the last few years. It’s no longer a once-a-year engagement survey, a promise to “take this on board” (groan!), and then a mysterious silence that lasts until the next survey rolls around.

‍

In 2026, listening is either a genuine competitive advantage, or the quickest way to lose trust if you do it badly. Because employees can spot performative listening from three Slack channels away.

‍

So, let’s talk about it. Are organisations doing this well, what do the best ones do differently, and why annual surveys alone don’t really cut it anymore.

‍

‍

Why listening matters more in 2026

‍

Work is faster, messier, more hybrid, more complex, and more emotionally loaded than it used to be. The old model of “leaders decide, comms announces, everyone complies” is now basically a historical drama. Our comms strategies in 2026 must reflect this.

‍

Sadly, there’s also a very real trust gap between employees and leaders in many organisations. Microsoft famously highlighted the disconnect in its Work Trend Index “productivity paranoia” findings: most employees said they were productive, while most leaders struggled to have confidence in that productivity in hybrid work. That gap doesn’t get solved by more monitoring. It gets solved by clearer expectations, better conversations, and listening that feels real.

‍

And there’s a solid body of evidence that “employee voice” (people being able to speak up with ideas or concerns) benefits organisations. But employees often hesitate to speak up, and managers aren’t always great at receiving it. (ScienceDirect)

‍

In other words: listening isn’t just a nice cultural extra. It’s how you reduce friction, spot problems early, and stop small issues turning into big resignations.

‍

‍

Are we doing it well?

‍

Some organisations are. Many aren’t. A lot of “employee listening” still looks like this:

• Ask for feedback once a year
• Publish a summary that says “We hear you”
• Make three improvements (usually around “free fruit”)
• Move on

The issue isn’t collecting feedback. It’s what happens next. If employees don’t see change, or don’t understand why change can’t happen, the message they receive is: “Thanks for that. Anyway…” And that’s how you get survey fatigue, cynicism, and people deciding it’s safer to keep their heads down.

‍

‍

What companies gain when they listen properly

‍

Listening isn’t charity. It’s not even particularly altruistic. It’s practical.

‍

Engagement and performance are strongly linked in Gallup’s large meta-analysis of business units, with engagement relating positively to outcomes like productivity and profitability, and negatively to turnover and absenteeism. You’ll also see widely-cited summaries of Gallup’s findings that highlight big differences between high- and low-engagement organisations on things like profitability and absenteeism (useful for leaders who only speak spreadsheet).

‍

Listening also improves decision-making speed and quality. The people closest to the work usually know where processes are broken, which systems are painful, and where customers are quietly screaming. When they can speak up safely, organisations adapt faster and waste less time “fixing” the wrong things.

‍

And it reduces risk. A culture where employees feel able to raise concerns early is a culture that catches problems before they become headline material.

‍

‍

What management gains (and why they should care)

‍

For leaders and managers, listening is the antidote to guessing.

When leaders don’t listen, they fill the gaps with assumptions. That’s how you get “productivity paranoia”, needless check-ins, and policies designed for a workforce that doesn’t exist anymore.

‍

Listening gives leaders:

• Earlier warning signs (before attrition spikes)
• Better clarity on what’s actually happening on the ground
• More credibility, because people can see decisions are informed by reality
• Better team performance, because psychological safety and voice improve participation

Even small leadership behaviours can affect psychological safety and whether people choose to contribute and speak up, as research from Harvard Business School notes when examining what makes interactions feel safe enough for participation.

‍

In plain terms: if leaders want honest feedback, they have to behave in a way that makes honesty feel safe.

‍

‍

What employees gain (beyond the warm fuzzy feeling)

‍

When listening is done well, employees get more than a comment box. They get:

• Clarity and influence. People understand what’s happening and feel they can shape it.
• Psychological safety. Speaking up doesn’t feel like career roulette.
• Fairer, better decisions. Because decisions are based on lived experience, not meeting-room theory.
• A stronger sense of belonging. “My voice matters here” is one of the most powerful engagement drivers you can create.

And when times are tough, psychological safety isn’t a luxury. Recent HBR commentary notes research pointing to psychologically safe environments reducing burnout and turnover even under strain.

‍

Are annual surveys enough in 2026?

‍

Short answer: no. Annual surveys aren’t useless. They’re just not sufficient on their own.

‍

Think of annual surveys like an annual health check. Helpful, but not much use if you only see the doctor once a year while ignoring the symptoms for the other 364 days.

‍

The main problem is speed. Annual surveys give you a snapshot, but modern workplaces change too quickly for once-a-year insight to be your primary listening method. A number of employee-experience and comms sources now emphasise the shift away from annual-only surveys towards more frequent “pulse” approaches and mixed methods.

‍

So yes: do the annual survey. But treat it as your “big picture” input, and then layer in listening that keeps up with real life.

‍

‍

What effective two-way comms looks like in 2026

‍

Two-way comms doesn’t mean “we added a comments section and now we’re modern”. It means creating multiple, safe ways for employees to speak, and proving it leads somewhere.

‍

Effective two-way comms usually has three parts: collect, interpret, act. Miss the last part and you’re just gathering opinions for sport. It also needs variety, because different employees speak up in different ways. A strong listening system typically blends:

• Pulse surveys for quick temperature checks
• Manager-led check-ins (with guidance, not guesswork)
• Focus groups or listening sessions for depth
• Always-on channels for ideas and friction points
• “You said, we did” updates to close the loop (video is great for this!)

The crucial bit is the loop closure. If you only take feedback and never show what changed, you’re training employees to stop bothering.

‍

‍

Real-world examples

‍

Some of the best examples aren’t branded as “employee listening programmes”. They’re just organisations building listening into how they operate.

‍

Adobe is a classic example in performance management: they replaced annual performance reviews with “Check-in”, designed to encourage more regular feedback and ongoing conversation rather than one big yearly judgement day. The internal comms lesson is obvious: continuous dialogue beats annual theatre.

‍

Qualtrics’ employee listening guidance also reflects what many high-performing organisations do: don’t rely on one annual engagement survey; use a mix of pulse, lifecycle feedback, 360s, and other listening moments so you’re not always working with old data.

‍

And while it’s an older example, Cisco publicly documented its “Pulse Survey” approach as a way to measure and act on employee sentiment over time. The principle remains relevant even as tools evolve.

‍

‍

The internal comms role: stop being the messenger, start being the listening architect

‍

Internal comms can’t “own” listening on behalf of the business. But we can design the system and stop it becoming a yearly box-tick.

‍

Our job in 2026 is to make listening feel:

• Safe (confidential where needed, psychologically safe always)
• Useful (questions that lead to decisions, not just data)
• Visible (people can see what changed)
• Honest (sometimes the answer is “we can’t do that, and here’s why”)

And if we want a simple gut-check: if employees are more honest on Glassdoor than they are internally, our listening channels aren’t safe enough yet.

‍

‍

The bottom line

‍

Listening in 2026 is not about collecting more feedback. It’s about building enough trust that employees will give us the truth, and enough follow-through that they believe it matters. Annual surveys alone won’t keep up with the pace of work, the complexity of hybrid teams, or the level of change most organisations are dealing with. Two-way comms done properly is not a campaign. It’s a habit. And yes, it takes effort. But the alternative is running an organisation based on assumptions, which is a bold strategy. And not in a good way!

‍

A comms health check is the simplest, quickest and most efficient way to gauge whether your people feel heard or herded. And if you’d like our help with that, give us a shout. We’ve got some Christmas choccies left over that we’re happy to share.

‍