✅ Why most communicators aren't ready for AI
A European study of public relations practitioners suggest AI cultural issues override technology issues.
European communication practitioners see the risks of generative AI, but few are ready to deal with them. A new research study proposes READINESS - both individual and organisational - as the missing link between awareness and action.
The study published in the Journal of Communication Management by Yijing Wang, Silvia Ravazzani, and Anca Anton explores whether communication teams are prepared for the rising wave of generative AI disruption.
The short answer? Not yet.
The gap between hype and preparedness
We’ve all read the hype: AI will reshape our workflows, transform content creation, and redefine the practitioner role. And while some organisations have already adopted tools such as ChatGPT, many practitioners remain ill-equipped to manage the accompanying risks.
This study interviewed 84 practitioners across Europe to explore how they perceive risks and how they define and develop READINESS. It’s not just technical capability, but the mindset and resilience to handle disruption. What emerged was a call to action: awareness is high, but preparedness is dangerously low.
Seven things every organisation should know about AI READINESS
The research identifies seven key themes that practitioners and leadership teams need to address:
The risks are real and multi-dimensional
From data security and misinformation to creative decline and reputational harm, AI introduces ethical, operational and strategic risks that many teams aren’t currently trained to spot or mitigate.Individual READINESS is about more than skills
It’s not just about knowing how to prompt AI tools. Practitioners need critical thinking, ethical judgement, and a healthy scepticism. Those who see AI as a partner, not a crutch, are better prepared to lead.Organisational READINESS demands more than policy
Leaders must foster a culture of experimentation, set clear governance, and invest in systems that support safe and effective AI adoption — from skills development to scenario planning.Skills aren’t optional anymore
Individual and collective upskilling emerged as a central theme. That means continuous learning, internal training programmes, and support networks that foster digital literacy and ethical awareness.Work environments matter, both digital and physical
Organisations with strong infrastructure, collaborative tools, and psychologically safe spaces are better equipped to integrate AI responsibly. READINESS is about conditions, not just capabilities.The ethics conversation can’t be outsourced
Participants repeatedly called for clearer guidance, guardrails and governance. It’s no longer good enough to experiment without a code of conduct.Culture eats capability for breakfast
READINESS requires more than PowerPoints and policy decks. Teams need an adaptive, open culture that supports change.
Why this matters for communication leaders
This research delivers a powerful wake-up call. We can’t treat AI as just another tool in the marcomms kit. It’s a disruptive force reshaping power structures, expectations, and the very nature of communication itself.
Here’s what leaders need to do:
Audit your AI literacy: Where are the gaps in understanding, skills, and confidence across your team?
Prioritise governance: Invest time in setting clear ethical standards, especially around misinformation, privacy and creative accountability.
Build dual-track capability: Develop both individual skills and organisational systems that support risk-aware experimentation.
Champion psychological safety: READINESS isn’t just technical, it’s emotional. People need space to ask questions, challenge assumptions and speak up about risks.
As one respondent put it: “What AI gives us at the moment is not good enough yet, it’s raw and needs a human touch to be delivered further.”
Therein lies the opportunity for communicators, not just to use the tools, but to lead the conversation about how they’re used.
Ben Verinder and I are doing exactly this via a community of practice that we’ve created. It’s set to publish a book called AI for Public Relations: A How-To Guide for Implementation and Management in May 2026.
I’m also presenting alongside Debbie Zaman, CEO, With, at the AMEC AI Day on 4 November in London, where we will share our experience of co-creating and delivering a six-month AI integration programme at With.
I hope you have a great weekend when it lands.
Reference
Wang, Y., Ravazzani, S., and Anton, A. (2025). Generative AI risks: are European communication professionals ready? Journal of Communication Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-12-2024-0256.
Where do I sign my support?
Specifically on your points 3 and 5, the available stacks of tools are hard to manage by medium and large companies. And some organisations don't have standard operating procedures, so it's impossible to integrate AI into their routines.
Upskilling is a word that I would like to burn to the ground. Today's technology allows us to be continuous learners, but that takes effort. It's much easier to buy a dubious AI course or endure some HR forced training on how to use ChatGPT.
The culture thing remains at the top of the list. I have led very large global teams in big companies, and I remain someone who likes to get out to the countries and mix it up with the teams there. I am a Europhile. I mention this because what comes next does not offset or denigrate all that's terrific about European business culture, but it does temper it.
My observations over 30 years, right up to the present, is that the "big countries" of the EU have cultures that make them laggards in dealing effectively with change. One could even argue that European culture is, substantively but not totally, anti-change. One of the reasons why my ww marketing teams were often centralized globally was that while we could uplift marketing practices around the world, those would be undermined by unreconstructed, change-averse, even change denying business leaders. So we had to remove marketers from the direct power of those leaders, and tie the company's understanding of their performance to causal analytics, not executive opinion.
It's easy to point to the stratification of power in Europe and UK companies based on cultural norms, but the reality is that this same dynamic exists in the US and in Asia. The bottom two-thirds of a company is remarkably flat today anywhere in the world, but the upper third or quartile is not. And it is those people who often are the most resistant to change, seeing it as a threat to their personal status quo.