Preparedness Isn’t About Speaking First, It’s About Knowing If and When to Speak

When organizations think about crisis communications, they typically find themselves in one of two very different scenarios.

The first scenario is the ideal, but unfortunately not the commonplace for far too many organizations. In this scenario, you have taken the time to develop a crisis communications plan in advance. Roles are defined. Scenarios are mapped. Draft messaging exists for a range of potential issues and stakeholder audiences.

The second scenario is far more common. You are already in the midst of a crisis. Something unexpected has happened, pressure is building and a communications strategy must be developed in real time, often while facts are still emerging, leadership is stretched thin and external scrutiny may be growing by the hour. I work with companies in this situation every day.

While these two scenarios differ in preparation and pace, they share a critical strategic requirement. In both cases, organizations must decide if, when and how to communicate, not simply what to say.

Prepared Does Not Mean You Must Communicate

One of the most persistent misconceptions in crisis communications is the belief that having a plan automatically triggers outbound messaging.

Whether a plan was developed months in advance or assembled under pressure in the middle of an unfolding event, communication is always a strategic choice, not a reflex.

In many situations:

• The issue is contained
• Awareness is limited
• Facts are incomplete
• External attention has not materialized
• Premature communication could unnecessarily elevate the issue

In these situations, preparedness means having the discipline and confidence to pause, while actively monitoring the situation and preparing to respond if conditions change.

Why This Distinction Matters

During a recent conversation with a prospective client who was experiencing a crisis issue, I explained the importance of developing a comprehensive crisis communications playbook, including scenario-based messaging for employees, customers, board members and other key stakeholders.

The concern raised was that once the playbook was developed, the organization would be expected to immediately begin communicating with all identified audiences.

That was not the intent and the concern highlights a broader misunderstanding.

A crisis communications plan does not dictate action. It creates options.

The value of planning, whether proactive or reactive, lies in maintaining control, not in accelerating communication for its own sake.

Theoretical vs. Actionable Planning

This is where the difference between theoretical and actionable planning becomes critical.

Theoretical plans focus on:

• What messages exist
• Who the stakeholders are
• What scenarios could occur

Actionable plans address:

• Who decides whether communication is necessary
• What thresholds trigger outreach
• When monitoring is the appropriate response
• How quickly messaging can be deployed if needed
• When silence is not only acceptable, but advisable

Actionable planning gives leadership room to think, even under pressure.

Monitoring Is an Active Strategy

Too often, organizations view crisis response as binary, either we communicate, or we are unprepared.

In reality, monitoring is a core response function, in both proactive and reactive scenarios.

Effective monitoring includes:

• Tracking internal awareness and employee sentiment
• Assessing media, social and third-party chatter
• Evaluating legal, regulatory and operational exposure
• Identifying misinformation before it spreads

This allows organizations to stay ahead of the issue without amplifying it unnecessarily.

Monitoring is not passive. It is a deliberate, informed posture that preserves flexibility.

Why Silence Can Be the Right Move

In today’s environment, the pressure to communicate quickly is intense. Speed is often confused with competence.

But silence, when it is intentional, informed and backed by preparedness can:

• Prevent minor issues from becoming public controversies
• Avoid creating narratives that did not previously exist
• Preserve trust while facts are validated
• Reduce the risk of inconsistent or inaccurate messaging

Some of the most effective crisis responses never become public at all.

Preparedness Creates Confidence, Not Obligation

The funny thing is organizations who invest in crisis communications planning are often the least likely to over-communicate.

Why? Because they know:

• Messaging is ready if needed
• Roles and approvals are clear
• Decision-making authority is defined
• Response timelines are realistic

That confidence allows leadership to choose the right moment or no moment at all.

So keep in mind crisis communications is not about saying everything, to everyone, as quickly as possible.

Crisis communications is about:

• Exercising judgment
• Protecting credibility
• Avoiding self-inflicted reputational harm
• Maintaining control

Whether you are planning in advance or building a strategy in the middle of an unfolding crisis, the principle remains the same. Preparedness doesn’t mean you will communicate, it means you can communicate strategically, deliberately and at the right time.