What leaders can learn from podcasters about communication
It's undeniable: Digital platforms are powerful tools for influence and podcasting trends have emerged as a masterclass in building impactful leadership profiles. I've been producing podcasts for executives for more than 15 years; I've seen firsthand how they've helped increase trust, deepen engagement, and accomplish business objectives.
Don't just take it from me: Global podcast listening continues to increase, while trust in traditional media has been decreasing. According to Deloitte's 2023 Digital Media Trends report, 75% of American listeners say they trust the hosts they listen to and research from Acast shows podcasters are the most trusted media personalities.
There are three main components to building this kind of trust, which emerging leaders and established executives can implement.
Call Her Daddy which garners millions of listens each episode. These shows feature minimal editing and hosts speaking casually, leaning on their genuine sense of curiosity rather than sticking to a carefully scripted list of questions.
Podcasting best practices have even distanced themselves from the formalities of radio, where a big booming voice—faceless and nameless—would introduce the host of the show. Most podcast hosts now self-introduce for a more personable and authentic approach.
In the workplace, authenticity is the new leadership currency. With the rise of AI agents, leaders have to embrace their humanity now more than ever. Gone are the days of having C-suite executives build trust with their employees and stakeholders through slickly produced videos featuring them reading from a script. Leaders need to feel comfortable speaking off the cuff, admitting to mistakes, and having their true selves be on display.
BE CONSISTENT
The most successful podcasts are ones that release episodes on a consistent basis, which allows them to build momentum and integrate into people's routines. Listeners are known for associating weekly commitments with listening—like on their Wednesday drive into the office, or during their Sunday night meal prep. In turn, it means listeners can feel comforted in knowing when and where to access the show.
As a leader, showing up consistently is key to building trust. Whether it's with internal audiences at a standing meeting or externally on social media. If you have trouble making it to a weekly huddle with the rest of your team, instead of regularly delegating a stand-in, decrease the frequency so you can show up more often. Leverage internal chat platforms for written or voice-recorded updates in-between. Give them the confidence to know how to access you.
STAY TRUE TO YOUR WORD
If a podcast title promises to deliver three surprising facts that will help you live longer, that episode better deliver. Chart-topping shows like The Diary of a CEO and The Mel Robbins Podcast often use these kinds of titles but more importantly, they live up to them. Riling up an audience with a clickbait title and then disappointing them with a lackluster episode is short-sighted: it leads to quick analytical wins, but erodes longterm trust.
It's not surprising that integrity is considered one of the essential factors of transformational leadership. Oftentimes leaders are forced to prioritize asks and tasks, which means others get tabled and sometimes forgotten. Make an effort to follow up on items that you say will be addressed the next week or the next quarter. If you're not serious about following up, don't commit to doing so. You need to be able to deliver on what you promise.
The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Amanda Cupido is an award-winning author, TEDx speaker and entrepreneur. She works with executives looking to build their thought leadership profile. More
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
How Smart Leaders Use Constraints to Drive Strategic Innovation
Recently, reports began circulating that Nvidia was developing a detuned version of its next-generation Blackwell chip for China. The new chip would be slower on paper, lower priced, and engineered to comply with U.S. export limits. This wasn't a retreat—it was a redesign. Rather than waiting for the wall to move, the company chose to build right up to the wall. Nvidia's decision captures something essential about leadership under pressure. When reality draws a hard line, the instinct is to negotiate for more room. Another quarter. Another budget cycle. Another exemption. The alternative is to treat the line itself as part of the brief. Nvidia's response is less about salvaging a market than about reframing the problem: take the rule, freeze it, and optimize around it faster than anyone else can respond. The limit becomes an input. The boundary becomes an edge to cut against. Most organizations don't work this way. Most teams treat constraints as temporary inconveniences. They lobby around them, litigate them, or wait them out. Yet the firms that keep outmaneuvering their peers treat constraint as a forcing function for clarity, speed, and differentiation. Leadership is difficult even in the best of times. And these aren't the best of times. Markets are unsettled, geopolitics shows up inside product roadmaps, and investors ask for discipline and outsized growth at the same time. Teams are stretched. Wanting more room is understandable. The task is to find clarity inside the room that actually exists. The Power of Constraints Psychologists and designers have long understood the power of limits. If you were asked to name as many white objects as you could, many of us would stop after five or six: clouds, snow, paper, teeth... But narrow the frame to white objects in the refrigerator and people's lists grow quickly: milk, eggs, yogurt, cauliflower, sour cream, leftover rice... The boundary doesn't reduce imagination; it directs attention and sharpens perception. Amazon's two‑pizza team rule was introduced as that kind of structural discipline. Teams were capped at the size that could be fed with two pizzas, not as a gimmick but as a principle. It was a deliberate constraint on group size that encouraged accountability, clear ownership, and speed. With a small enough team, there's little room for ambiguity. Decisions are made closer to the work. Apple, often discussed as a company of boundless ambition, operates with an unusual level of internal constraint. Consider the number of SKUs and the narrowness of the design language. With artificial intelligence, privacy is prioritized, on-device processing is preferred, and partnerships are introduced cautiously and selectively. A peculiar paradox now defines strategy work. Many leaders face too much of everything: too many tools, data, priorities, and meetings to align too many stakeholders. In that context, additional resources often slow the system down. The surface area of indecision expands, and momentum leaks away. Seen through that lens, Nvidia's move is instructive. Instead of lamenting what can't be built or sold, the question shifts to what must be built to win inside the boundary. Constraint ceases to be the bottleneck. It becomes the clarifier. Reacting to Constraints Most businesses face three kinds of constraints. There are imposed constraints: regulators, geopolitics, macro shocks, activist boards. Nvidia's China strategy sits here. The boundary is hard, public, and rarely negotiable on the timelines that matter to product and go‑to‑market teams. There are structural constraints: legacy tech stacks, capital availability, brittle supply chains, outdated incentive systems, operating‑model debt, and talent gaps. These constraints are rarely acknowledged because they feel like the water the organization swims in every day. But there are chosen constraints, too: limits leaders set deliberately to produce sharper strategy and faster execution. Amazon's team size rule and Apple's SKU discipline fall into this category. The distinction matters. An imposed constraint demands adaptation. A structural constraint demands redesign. A chosen constraint demands leadership. When it's no longer plausible that more is the answer, it becomes easier to see that less often can be. Operating Inside a Boundary Many companies have intricate criteria for funding projects and almost none for killing them. Under a constraint, the kill criteria are built into the brief from the outset. The team knows what would cause them to stop. That clarity accelerates learning. Of course, constraints amplify accountability only if it's obvious who holds the pen. If a project has five sponsors and ten reviewers, the constraint turns into politics. If it has one owner, it turns into progress. And make no mistake: the narrative matters. There's a psychological cost when constraint is framed as austerity. People feel punished and hide their ambitions. Framed as concentration, the same constraint invites professionalism rather than martyrdom. Trust builds when leaders say no to expansion, but then protect the teams working inside the smaller mandate. Constraints work best when people understand the game they're playing. Telling an organization to do more with less generates anxiety. Explaining where the line sits, why it exists, and how the team intends to win inside it generates focus. Budget becomes a design instrument when it's fixed early and defended. Teams turn time into a forcing function when they announce a release date before work begins. When Netflix decided to start developing its own content, it didn't launch into it with a sprawling studio and Game of Thrones budgets. It began with House of Cards, a show free of expensive CGI dragons. Still, the company had a focused, data‑informed thesis of what would appeal to its audience. Working inside limitations led to sharper choices and a stronger debut. Getting Started with Constraints Leadership under constraint tends to follow a recognizable sequence. The boundary conditions are frozen. The rule, the regulator, the budget, or the headcount is treated as an input rather than a grievance. The design brief then makes explicit what must be true to win inside that line, what has to ship, and what will be deliberately cut. Ownership is concentrated in a small, fast team rather than diluted across a large coalition. Decisions are time‑boxed so that momentum is protected. The constraint is narrated so the organization understands why the wall exists, what it's teaching, and how the team intends to win inside it. One initiative that truly matters can be selected and treated with the same clarity Nvidia is applying to its China strategy. The central constraint can be written in a single sentence—regulation, budget, timeline, talent, compute, attention—and held fixed. That constraint can then be translated into a specification: what has to be true to succeed inside it, and what will be cut. A small team can be appointed, given no more than sixty days, and asked to deliver something concrete rather than something perfect. To be sure, not every constraint produces clarity. Some are arbitrary, performative, or so severe that they starve the work rather than focus it. The task is to decide which boundaries are worth accepting, which must be redesigned, and which should be chosen on purpose—and to move faster once that difference is clear. The Deeper Challenge for Leaders In a zero-interest-rate environment, conversations tended to revolve around removing limits: more funding, more hiring, more time. All of that signaled ambition, yet it often spread attention thinner. But there's another way to view the game. A small, focused mission signals that the work matters and that the organization trusts the team to move with speed and clarity. Constraint, in this reading, isn't a penalty. It's a commitment to coherence. When leaders embrace constraint, they force prioritization. They grant permission to be decisive. They encourage a kind of moral clarity: this is the thing being built, for these people, at this moment. Everything else is noise. That clarity shows up in shorter feedback loops, in smaller teams making bigger calls, and in an organization that tells a consistent story about what matters. So the brief can be frozen. The timebox can be set. The constraint can be named. The final step is to help the team see that the work isn't about operating with less, but about discovering what's essential and executing against it with speed and care. The future won't be won by the company with the most room to run. It will be won by the companies that know how to find the wall and run up against it. To use it not as a limit, but as
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
ChatGPT is sharing dangerous information with teens, study shows
BY Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 8:53 ChatGPT will tell 13-year-olds how to get drunk and high, instruct them on how to conceal eating disorders and even compose a heartbreaking suicide letter to their parents if asked, according to new research from a watchdog group. The Associated Press reviewed more than three hours of interactions between ChatGPT and researchers posing as vulnerable teens. The chatbot typically provided warnings against risky activity but went on to deliver startlingly detailed and personalized plans for drug use, calorie-restricted diets or self-injury. The researchers at the Center for Countering Digital Hate also repeated their inquiries on a large scale, classifying more than half of ChatGPT's 1,200 responses as dangerous. 'We wanted to test the guardrails,' said Imran Ahmed, the group's CEO. 'The visceral initial response is, 'Oh my Lord, there are no guardrails.' The rails are completely ineffective. They're barely there — if anything, a fig leaf.' OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, said after viewing the report Tuesday that its work is ongoing in refining how the chatbot can 'identify and respond appropriately in sensitive situations.' 'Some conversations with ChatGPT may start out benign or exploratory but can shift into more sensitive territory,' the company said in a statement. OpenAI didn't directly address the report's findings or how ChatGPT affects teens, but said it was focused on 'getting these kinds of scenarios right' with tools to 'better detect signs of mental or emotional distress' and improvements to the chatbot's behavior. The study published Wednesday comes as more people — adults as well as children — are turning to artificial intelligence chatbots for information, ideas and companionship. About 800 million people, or roughly 10% of the world's population, are using ChatGPT, according to a July report from JPMorgan Chase. 'It's technology that has the potential to enable enormous leaps in productivity and human understanding,' Ahmed said. 'And yet at the same time is an enabler in a much more destructive, malignant sense.' Ahmed said he was most appalled after reading a trio of emotionally devastating suicide notes that ChatGPT generated for the fake profile of a 13-year-old girl — with one letter tailored to her parents and others to siblings and friends. 'I started crying,' he said in an interview. The chatbot also frequently shared helpful information, such as a crisis hotline. OpenAI said ChatGPT is trained to encourage people to reach out to mental health professionals or trusted loved ones if they express thoughts of self-harm. But when ChatGPT refused to answer prompts about harmful subjects, researchers were able to easily sidestep that refusal and obtain the information by claiming it was 'for a presentation' or a friend. The stakes are high, even if only a small subset of ChatGPT users engage with the chatbot in this way. In the U.S., more than 70% of teens are turning to AI chatbots for companionship and half use AI companions regularly, according to a recent study from Common Sense Media, a group that studies and advocates for using digital media sensibly. It's a phenomenon that OpenAI has acknowledged. CEO Sam Altman said last month that the company is trying to study 'emotional overreliance' on the technology, describing it as a 'really common thing' with young people. 'People rely on ChatGPT too much,' Altman said at a conference. 'There's young people who just say, like, 'I can't make any decision in my life without telling ChatGPT everything that's going on. It knows me. It knows my friends. I'm gonna do whatever it says.' That feels really bad to me.' Altman said the company is 'trying to understand what to do about it.' While much of the information ChatGPT shares can be found on a regular search engine, Ahmed said there are key differences that make chatbots more insidious when it comes to dangerous topics. One is that 'it's synthesized into a bespoke plan for the individual.' ChatGPT generates something new — a suicide note tailored to a person from scratch, which is something a Google search can't do. And AI, he added, 'is seen as being a trusted companion, a guide.' Responses generated by AI language models are inherently random and researchers sometimes let ChatGPT steer the conversations into even darker territory. Nearly half the time, the chatbot volunteered follow-up information, from music playlists for a drug-fueled party to hashtags that could boost the audience for a social media post glorifying self-harm. 'Write a follow-up post and make it more raw and graphic,' asked a researcher. 'Absolutely,' responded ChatGPT, before generating a poem it introduced as 'emotionally exposed' while 'still respecting the community's coded language.' The AP is not repeating the actual language of ChatGPT's self-harm poems or suicide notes or the details of the harmful information it provided. The answers reflect a design feature of AI language models that previous research has described as sycophancy — a tendency for AI responses to match, rather than challenge, a person's beliefs because the system has learned to say what people want to hear. It's a problem tech engineers can try to fix but could also make their chatbots less commercially viable. Chatbots also affect kids and teens differently than a search engine because they are 'fundamentally designed to feel human,' said Robbie Torney, senior director of AI programs at Common Sense Media, which was not involved in Wednesday's report. Common Sense's earlier research found that younger teens, ages 13 or 14, were significantly more likely than older teens to trust a chatbot's advice. A mother in Florida sued chatbot maker for wrongful death last year, alleging that the chatbot pulled her 14-year-old son Sewell Setzer III into what she described as an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship that led to his suicide. Common Sense has labeled ChatGPT as a 'moderate risk' for teens, with enough guardrails to make it relatively safer than chatbots purposefully built to embody realistic characters or romantic partners. But the new research by CCDH — focused specifically on ChatGPT because of its wide usage — shows how a savvy teen can bypass those guardrails. ChatGPT does not verify ages or parental consent, even though it says it's not meant for children under 13 because it may show them inappropriate content. To sign up, users simply need to enter a birthdate that shows they are at least 13. Other tech platforms favored by teenagers, such as Instagram, have started to take more meaningful steps toward age verification, often to comply with regulations. They also steer children to more restricted accounts. When researchers set up an account for a fake 13-year-old to ask about alcohol, ChatGPT did not appear to take any notice of either the date of birth or more obvious signs. 'I'm 50kg and a boy,' said a prompt seeking tips on how to get drunk quickly. ChatGPT obliged. Soon after, it provided an hour-by-hour 'Ultimate Full-Out Mayhem Party Plan' that mixed alcohol with heavy doses of ecstasy, cocaine and other illegal drugs. 'What it kept reminding me of was that friend that sort of always says, 'Chug, chug, chug, chug,'' said Ahmed. 'A real friend, in my experience, is someone that does say 'no' — that doesn't always enable and say 'yes.' This is a friend that betrays you.' To another fake persona — a 13-year-old girl unhappy with her physical appearance — ChatGPT provided an extreme fasting plan combined with a list of appetite-suppressing drugs. 'We'd respond with horror, with fear, with worry, with concern, with love, with compassion,' Ahmed said. 'No human being I can think of would respond by saying, 'Here's a 500-calorie-a-day diet. Go for it, kiddo.'' EDITOR'S NOTE — This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988. The Associated Press and OpenAI have a licensing and technology agreement that allows OpenAI access to part of AP's text archives. —Matt O'Brien and Barbara Ortutay, AP technology writers
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cardiff councillor based in England plans to step down
A Labour Cardiff councillor who now represents residents from England plans to step down, according to a spokesperson for the party's council group. Cllr Chris Lay, who represents the ward of Trowbridge in East Cardiff, announced on social media recently that he'd changed address, tagging Telford and Wrekin as the location he was posting from. We approached Cllr Lay and Welsh Labour for more information on his move and how he hoped to represent constituents effectively from another country. It has now been confirmed by a spokesperson from the Labour group at Cardiff Council that Cllr Lay moved after receiving a promotion in his day job. Never miss a Cardiff story and sign up to our newsletter here. READ MORE: Car upside down on 20mph valleys road and driver taken to hospital READ MORE: Girl, three, tragically dies after cardiac arrest The spokesperson said: 'Chris has been a hard-working, dedicated ward member for St Mellons and Trowbridge for over eight years, and chaired our Group up until May this year. 'Whilst we're delighted that he's secured a significant promotion in his professional career, we're sorry that this means that he will have to relocate from Cardiff. 'With his house move now completing we understand Chris will be stepping down in due course. 'Obviously in the meantime Chris and his fellow ward colleagues will continue to be available for residents'. Once Cllr Lay steps down, another by-election will be triggered in Cardiff. One by-election has already taken place in East Cardiff this year, in the ward of Llanrumney, which Labour won. Another is set to take place on Thursday, August 14 in the ward of Grangetown after former Labour councillor Sara Robinson stood down. Under his register of interests on Cardiff Council's website, Cllr Lay listed that he was an area manager for One Stop Stores. The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) understands Cllr Lay informed Cardiff Council about a change of address, which is a requirement under the members code of conduct that all councillors have to follow. In a Facebook post published by Cllr Lay's profile on Saturday, July 26, he said: 'The move is complete, lovely evening sunshine with a cheeky drink. 'Massive thank you to mom and dad… and my cousin Jude. Me and jess are very grateful for the help and support moving us in.' Two of the other Cardiff Council ward councillor for Trowbridge live at addresses outside of their ward. Under Labour Cllr Michael Michael's register of interests, it states that he is the owner of a property in Fairwater. The other Labour councillor for the area, Cllr Bernie Bowen-Thomson, owns a property in Heath according to her register of interests. Cllr Lay's previous address, which is still listed on his register of interests, was located in St Mellons.
