The instinct in the first hour of a crisis is to respond publicly and forcefully. It is almost always the wrong instinct. What follows is the sequence we actually run.
Hours nought to two: establish what is true
Before anything is drafted, someone senior has to establish the facts that the organisation can stand behind without qualification. This is slower than it sounds, because the first internal account of an incident is frequently wrong.
Nothing goes out during this window except an acknowledgement that the organisation is aware and is establishing the facts.
Hours two to six: sequence the audiences
The press is rarely the most important audience, though it is the loudest. Staff, customers, counterparties and regulators all have a stronger claim on hearing it directly, and all of them will read the press coverage too.
Getting the order wrong — employees learning about their own company from a news alert — creates a second problem on top of the first.
Hours six to twenty-four: correct facts, not framing
Public statements in the first day should do exactly two things: correct specific factual errors, and state what the organisation is doing. Arguing with the framing, disputing motives or attacking coverage extends the story and invites a follow-up.
The test for every sentence is whether it will still be accurate in three weeks. If there is any doubt, it does not go in.
Day two onward: go quiet on purpose
Once the position is stated and the facts corrected, silence is a legitimate strategy. Repeating the position generates fresh coverage of the original allegation. Return when there is something genuinely new: a finding, a resolution, an action taken.
Afterwards: document it
When a review concludes in the organisation’s favour, that outcome needs the same communications effort as the original notice received. Most companies are too exhausted by then to bother, which is why the public record so often ends at the accusation.
Ganesh Sharma
