Content Debt is the Silent Killer of Employee Trust
Most organizations are oblivious to their content problem until it molds employee behavior.
This is plausible because trust deficits don’t involve enterprise outages, error messages, or escalations.
Instead, it looks like this:
Employees asking the same questions repeatedly
Slack messages replacing search
PDFs saved locally “just in case”
Managers double-checking guidance before acting
Multiple cases on the same topics
These are the classic indicators of content debt.
What Content Debt Actually Is
Content debt is the accumulated cost of creating information faster than it’s governed, reviewed, or retired.
It shows up as:
Outdated policies that were never updated
Duplicate guidance living in multiple systems
Knowledge articles with no clear owner
“Temporary” content that becomes permanent
Unlike technical debt, content debt doesn’t break systems.
It breaks confidence in content.
How Content Debt Forms (Quietly)
Content debt isn’t a result of bad intentions, but rather reasonable decisions made in isolation:
A policy is updated but the old page was never removed
A new system was launched but legacy guidance is still indexed
A regional exception was documented once, then copied everywhere
A project site left up “just in case someone needs it”
Each decision makes sense in the moment, but together, they create a content environment employees can’t trust.
How Employees Experience Content Debt
Employees don’t say “this organization has poor content governance.”
Instead, they say:
“I don’t know which page is right”
“I’ll just ask someone”
“That article looks old - I’m not sure”
Over time, they adapt their behavior:
Search becomes a last resort
Tribal knowledge fills the gaps
Self-service adoption stalls, which lowers deflection and increases cases
The system still exists but employees stop believing in it.
Why Content Debt Is an Employee Experience Problem
Employee experience is more than usability.
It’s about clarity and confidence at moments that matter.
Content debt:
Increases cognitive load
Slows decision-making
Undermines change initiatives
Erodes trust in HR, IT, and the organization
When employees can’t rely on content, every interaction feels riskier, which is when trust starts to break.
The Hidden Cost of “Just Leaving It”
Organizations often hesitate to clean up content because:
“Someone might need it”
“We don’t want to delete the wrong thing”
“We’ll fix it later”
But content debt compounds. The longer it sits:
The harder it is to untangle
The more systems reference it
The more credibility it loses
This can result in a worst case scenario where employees assume all your content is wrong.
Why More Content Is Not the Answer
When trust drops, the instinct is to publish more:
More FAQs
More announcements
More microsites
Instead of solutioning, you’re compounding what is an operational problem, not a volume one.
Until ownership, review, and retirement shortcomings are addressed, new content just adds to the pile.
What Reducing Content Debt Actually Requires
We’re not one to present any problem, especially one of this scale, without offering some solutions.
Your approach should not be to delete everything and start over. Instead, it requires:
Clear ownership for every piece of content
Intentional review cycles tied to risk
Decisions about what is - and isn’t - the source of truth
Willingness to retire content that no longer serves employees
In other words, its governance designed for the employee experience.
The Bottom Line
Employees don’t lose trust because content is imperfect.
They lose trust because content is unreliable.
And once trust is gone, no redesign or new tool will fix it without addressing the debt underneath.
——
Not sure if content is helping or quietly hurting employees?
Use the Content Debt Self-Check to spot early warning signs before trust, self-service, and AI adoption break down.
——
If our perspective resonates with you, The Employee Content Experience Playbook goes deeper into how employees actually experience content and why most organizations misdiagnose the problem.
It’s designed to reframe thinking, not prescribe solutions.