When an unexpected problem becomes public, organizations may have very little time to decide how to respond. Gayle Pohl provides a useful context for examining why one decision should ideally be made well before that moment: who is responsible for speaking on the organization’s behalf.
A crisis can generate questions from customers, employees, community members, journalists, and other stakeholders almost immediately. If several people begin answering independently, even small differences in wording or information can create confusion. Choosing and preparing appropriate spokespeople in advance can help an organization communicate more consistently when circumstances are changing quickly.
A Crisis Is a Difficult Time to Choose a Spokesperson
Under normal conditions, organizations have time to discuss communication responsibilities.
A crisis removes much of that flexibility.
Leadership may be gathering facts while employees are receiving questions and public attention is increasing. Trying to decide who should speak while all of this is happening adds another decision to an already complicated situation.
Planning reduces that uncertainty.
Organizations can identify a primary spokesperson and determine who can serve as a backup if that person is unavailable. The plan can also identify subject-matter experts who may need to contribute information without necessarily becoming the primary public voice.
The goal is not to predict every possible crisis. It is to establish responsibilities before they become urgent.
Multiple Voices Can Create Conflicting Messages
Problems can escalate when several people provide different versions of the same event.
The differences may be minor. One person may use an outdated number while another has a newer figure. Someone may describe an event as resolved while another says an investigation is continuing.
Each individual might be trying to help.
To the audience, however, inconsistent information can suggest that the organization does not understand what is happening.
A defined spokesperson structure creates a central point for external communication. Information can be gathered from the appropriate departments and then communicated through a more coordinated process.
Consistency becomes especially important when circumstances are evolving.
The Spokesperson Does Not Need Every Answer Immediately
One misconception about crisis communication is that a spokesperson must be able to answer every question as soon as it is asked.
That expectation can create unnecessary pressure to speculate.
During an emerging situation, some information may not yet be confirmed. Other details may be unavailable because an investigation is underway or because privacy, legal, or safety considerations limit what can appropriately be disclosed.
A credible spokesperson should be comfortable distinguishing among:
- Information that has been confirmed.
- Details that are still being investigated.
- Information that cannot appropriately be shared.
- Questions that require additional verification.
- Updates that will be provided when more facts become available.
Saying that information is not yet confirmed can be more responsible than providing an answer simply because an audience expects one.
Subject-Matter Experts Still Matter
Designating one spokesperson does not mean one person must personally understand every technical detail.
Some crises involve specialized subjects.
A cybersecurity incident may require input from information technology professionals. A workplace accident may involve safety personnel. A product issue may require information from engineers or operations staff.
These specialists can help the communication team understand what happened and verify the accuracy of public information.
Depending on the situation, a subject-matter expert may also participate directly in interviews or briefings.
The important point is that roles should be coordinated. Technical knowledge and communication responsibility need to work together rather than compete.
Employees Need to Know Where Questions Should Go
Spokesperson planning is not only about the individual standing in front of a camera.
Employees throughout the organization may receive questions during a crisis.
A customer might call a familiar staff member. A journalist could contact an employee directly. Questions may appear on social media, or community members may approach employees outside the workplace.
If staff members do not know the communication process, they may answer with incomplete information simply because they are trying to be helpful.
Internal guidance should explain where external questions should be directed and how employees can report concerns or new information internally.
This is not about preventing employees from communicating with one another. It is about reducing the likelihood that unverified information becomes an unofficial public statement.
Preparation Should Include Practice
Naming a spokesperson on a crisis plan is useful, but preparation should go further.
Speaking during a high-pressure situation can be very different from giving a routine presentation.
Questions may be repetitive, skeptical, emotional, or based on inaccurate assumptions. The spokesperson needs to listen carefully and answer the actual question without being drawn into speculation.
Practice can help prepare for these conditions.
Useful preparation may include:
- Reviewing likely questions.
- Practicing concise explanations.
- Learning how to distinguish confirmed facts from assumptions.
- Preparing for follow-up questions.
- Understanding which information cannot be disclosed.
- Becoming comfortable acknowledging uncertainty.
- Practicing transitions back to verified information.
Preparation should improve clarity without making the speaker sound as though every response has been memorized.
Internal Updates Should Support External Communication
A spokesperson can only communicate accurately when reliable information reaches that person.
That requires an internal process.
Organizations should determine who gathers new facts, who verifies them, and how updates reach the communication team. Without this structure, the spokesperson may unknowingly continue using information that has already changed.
Internal communication can become particularly complicated when several departments are involved.
A defined information flow helps reduce that problem.
Instead of expecting the spokesperson to search throughout the organization for updates, responsible teams can provide verified information through established channels.
Speed and Accuracy Need to Work Together
Organizations often feel pressure to respond immediately during a crisis.
Silence can create an information vacuum in which rumors and speculation spread. Yet responding too quickly without verified facts can create additional problems.
Spokesperson planning helps balance these pressures.
A prepared representative can communicate what is currently known without pretending that every detail has been established.
An initial statement may be relatively limited. It can acknowledge the situation, explain what actions are underway when appropriate, and indicate that additional information will follow.
Updates can then become more detailed as facts are confirmed.
The Right Spokesperson Can Depend on the Situation
One person may not be appropriate for every type of crisis.
A chief executive may be suitable when an event involves organization-wide accountability or major strategic consequences. A technical leader may be more useful when the primary questions concern a specialized operational issue.
Organizations can plan for this distinction in advance.
Rather than identifying only one name, a crisis plan can define different spokesperson roles according to the nature and seriousness of the situation.
The organization should also identify backups.
People travel, become unavailable, change positions, or leave organizations. A crisis communication plan that depends entirely on one individual can quickly become outdated.
Plans Need Periodic Review
Spokesperson planning is not something an organization should complete once and forget.
Leadership changes. Departments are reorganized. Contact information changes, and new communication channels emerge.
Periodic reviews can confirm that the designated people are still appropriate and prepared.
Organizations can ask:
- Is the primary spokesperson still in the same role?
- Is a trained backup available?
- Do employees know where media questions should go?
- Are subject-matter experts identified for likely scenarios?
- Is contact information current?
- Has the spokesperson practiced recently?
These relatively simple questions can reveal gaps before an actual crisis exposes them.
Final Thoughts
Crisis communication involves many decisions that cannot be made until the facts of a specific situation are known. Choosing who is responsible for speaking does not have to be one of them.
Identifying spokespeople in advance creates clearer responsibilities, reduces conflicting messages, and gives organizations time to prepare people for difficult questions.
The spokesperson does not need to know everything. That person needs access to reliable information, an understanding of what has been confirmed, and the discipline to avoid filling information gaps with speculation.
When a crisis occurs, audiences will naturally want answers. Knowing who is responsible for providing those answers gives an organization one less fundamental decision to make while the situation is already demanding its attention.