During a recent WCFA ‘Leaders to Leaders’ session, crisis communications specialist Katja Fašink made a distinction that stayed with me. In essence, communicators shape the message; crisis communicators help navigate the response and limit its consequences.
Part of what interested me was where that distinction led: how much can a crisis communicator help if the organisation cannot hear bad news? That is my paraphrase, but it captures something useful about what organisations need from communications when something goes wrong.
Good communications has always involved understanding people, advising leaders and anticipating how decisions will be received. In a crisis, those responsibilities become especially demanding. Information is incomplete. People need answers. Decisions made now may be difficult to undo.
While the statement is one part of that work, there is also the question of whether the organisation can establish what has happened, listen to the people who understand it, and act.
As I worked through the rest of the session, that interest carried further: what happens inside a company when someone brings bad news?
Consider a hypothetical cyber incident. A security lead identifies suspicious activity and alerts management. They cannot yet confirm the extent of the intrusion, whether information has been taken, or how long recovery will take. The leadership team now has choices. It can give that person the support and authority to investigate, agree what needs to happen immediately, and establish when the next update will come. Or it can challenge why the alarm was raised before every fact was available.
That reaction matters beyond the immediate conversation. Everyone watching learns something about what happens when you flag a problem. If raising a concern means being blamed for it, the next person has a reason to hesitate. The organisation may hear less bad news while its underlying problems remain.
For a communications adviser, this creates a very practical difficulty. How do you give sound advice if important information is being softened or withheld on its way to the people making decisions? A reassuring statement can become a liability if the technical team has already identified reasons to doubt it. A promise about restoring services can create another problem if the people doing the work were never asked whether it was achievable.
This is why crisis preparation needs to examine how information moves through the business.
Who can raise an incident? Can a technical specialist reach the people authorised to act? Who checks the facts behind a public assurance? What happens when an employee challenges the proposed response?
Those questions belong in a rehearsal alongside spokesperson preparation and holding statements.
One of Katja’s useful points too was that leaders should support people who say they do not yet have a solution.
There is a disciplined way to do that. “We don’t know” should be followed by what is being investigated, what action is already underway, who is responsible, and when more information will be available. It gives people an honest account of the situation without pretending the uncertainty has disappeared.
Communications advisers need access to those discussions early enough to help. They can question whether a commitment is supportable, identify who needs information, and explain how a decision will affect employees, customers and other stakeholders.
Leaders still own the decisions. Technical teams still own the investigation and recovery. Communications helps connect that work to the people who need to understand it and act on it.
Before your next crisis exercise, ask the leadership team a simple question: what happened the last time someone brought us news we did not want to hear?
The answer will inform you as to how your crisis plan can work.
Pinpoint PR helps organisations prepare for cyber incidents through communications planning, leadership training and crisis counsel. Explore our cyber incident communications practice.
FAQ
What is the difference between communications and crisis communications?
Communications builds understanding, relationships and trust over time. Crisis communications applies those skills under urgent conditions, when information may be incomplete and decisions have immediate consequences. It involves advising leaders, explaining what is known, and helping affected people understand the response and what they should do.
Why does handling bad news matter to crisis preparedness?
A crisis response depends on accurate information reaching decision-makers quickly. If employees expect blame or dismissal when they raise concerns, they may hesitate or soften their warnings. Leaders need to make it safe to report problems early, including when the full extent of an incident is still uncertain.
How should an organisation communicate when it does not have all the answers?
Explain what is known, what remains uncertain, what action is underway, and when the next update will be provided. Avoid speculation and promises that the response team cannot support. Acknowledge uncertainty openly and update earlier information as verified facts become available.
What should a crisis communications rehearsal test?
A rehearsal should test how concerns are escalated, who can authorise decisions, how facts are checked, and how updates reach employees, customers and other stakeholders. It should also examine whether technical experts can challenge proposed statements and whether leaders can act on incomplete information without demanding false reassurance.
