At a recent conference, I was explaining the idea of building a crisis response framework around levels of severity rather than an infinite inventory of potential scenarios. The woman I was speaking with laughed and shared a story about a customer who once found a snake in her restaurant. With over two decades in crisis communications, even I would not have anticipated that scenario.
We buy car insurance because we understand the potential of an accident. We buy disability insurance because we understand the need for replacement income. Yet when it comes to mitigating damage to an organization by investing in proactive crisis communications planning, the answer is too often: maybe later.
Calibrating the response
In a crisis, the volume, clarity, and tone of a response are among the most consequential judgment calls a leader will make. Overreact, and risk amplifying something that did not warrant attention. Underreact, and cede the narrative to others as to whether the crisis was handled with sufficient diligence.
The right volume: A school received reports of a suspicious vehicle parked nearby. Parents called in. Rumours spread quickly. The school decided to address the situation at the board level, increasing the number of people involved in the response strategy and related communication. Measured, timely correspondence from school leadership could have contained the situation within hours. Instead, the delay turned a concerning moment into an ill-informed conspiracy theory that required excessive management over the days to come.
The right clarity: An organization detected a cyberattack. For the first few days, they were unable to determine whether private investor information had been compromised. The organization decided to manage the situation without disclosing the breach to investors, gambling that investor information had remained secure. A framework for disclosure decisions, built before the breach, would have replaced hesitation with clarity and protected both investors’ and the organization’s credibility.
The right tone: There is another kind of situation, one in which a thoughtful response transforms a difficult moment into a demonstration of organizational character. That was the case for a long-term care organization that had spent years raising funds to build a new facility. Community donations and government funds were secured. Architectural drawings were complete, and city approvals in hand. But when the U.S. government announced new tariffs, the economy shifted, and building costs rose. The Board made the difficult decision to pause construction and the harder decision to call each donor and institutional investor with the news, even at the risk of having to return their contributions. A communications strategy built around transparency and responsible stewardship reframed the pause in construction: it was not a setback, but evidence of careful management. Not only did they retain every dollar, but one stakeholder increased their monthly donation after learning about exciting future plans. The decision to lean into maximum transparency was rewarded with an equal measure of stakeholder trust and recognition of the organization’s integrity.
TIP: Reframe upward to a larger principle and lead with your values. It is not about what was stolen, but about the oversight gaps that have since been corrected. It is not about the complaint that was launched, but about a whistleblower program that is functioning as it should. It is not about one workplace incident, but about a new commitment to safety improvements across the organization. Reframing upward is not deflection. It is evidence that an organization understands the larger issue and is already addressing it.
Good intentions, no plan
There are three reasons organizations consistently give for not investing in a crisis communications plan.
The first is fear. Not fear of the crisis itself, but fear of reacting when information is still missing. And as they wait for the full picture to emerge, journalists speculate, employees gossip, and social media amplifies. A plan gives leadership messages to fall back on until the full picture emerges.
The second is proximity. Most leaders are closely involved in business decisions and aware of organizational risks. That confidence is an asset. But it can also create the expectation that every situation can be managed with existing time and talent, an assumption rarely tested until the moment it matters most.
The third is false logic. “I can’t plan for every eventuality,” which brings us back to the snake, and the value of planning for levels of severity rather than individual scenarios.
In practice, most often, the body that is insistent on creating a proactive crisis communications plan is the board of directors. Not because boards are more diligent than management, but because it is part of their governance mandate. Boards exist to ensure questions are asked, risks are identified, and assumptions are challenged, including the assumption that “all will be fine.”
A crisis communications plan is not a communications deliverable. It is a risk-mitigation document and belongs on the board’s agenda, just as the board oversees risks related to cybersecurity, finance, and succession planning. Recent research from Deloitte and the Society for Corporate Governance found that organizations with greater board involvement in crisis management demonstrated stronger preparedness across plan review, response capabilities, and post-crisis assessment. When boards treat crisis preparedness as a governance requirement rather than a suggestion to management, action follows.
A proactive crisis communications plan defines thresholds so that judgment is not made on gut instinct in highly intense situations. It establishes roles and decision rights: who speaks to the media, who updates investors, regulators, unions, and other stakeholders, and who owns the message to employees. It sequences the outreach so that nothing is forgotten and no one learns news from the wrong source.
Crisis communications planning is a cost-effective investment relative to the reputational, financial and operational risks it guards against. But it starts with genuine commitment from leadership, not a line item on a to-do list. “Maybe later” is not a deferral; it is a decision to accept the consequences of being unprepared.
About Author
Wendy Kauffman is a senior communications specialist and the founder of Wendolyn Reputation Management, specializing in crisis communications, corporate positioning, and spokesperson training. She has supported organizations ranging from global brands to innovative startups, drawing on years of print and broadcast journalism to help establish them as thought leaders and strong storytellers. Her crisis communications experience covers pandemics, plant and branch closures, layoffs, labour disputes, health and safety violations, security threats, litigation, and franchisee and customer service issues. Her work is conducted in close partnership with senior leadership teams, boards of directors, and legal counsel. Her media, presentation and thought-leadership training courses have been delivered to CEOs, politicians, boards of directors, unions, and other leaders in the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. Wendy is a regular public speaker and industry contributor. Wendy can be reached at wendy@wendolynreputatoin.com.
Read more on thought leadership at Resilience Through Water: How Innovation, Faith, and Sustainable Agriculture Are Restoring Human Dignity in Africa
