The Discipline of Speaking Quickly - and Wisely

A perspective on crisis communication and integrity through time-pressure and controversy.

A crisis tests more than your reputation - it tests leadership, culture, and your ability to stay value-aligned under pressure.

Over the years, I’ve walked alongside organisations and individuals in some of their most pressured moments - when the phone doesn’t stop ringing, the inbox floods with media enquiries, and reporters are waiting outside their workplace - sometimes even their home.

I’ve been involved in multiple situations where those facing severe public backlash were placed on suicide watch. I don’t share that lightly. I share it because I take my role seriously. Words carry the power of life and death.

Often, in a breaking scandal that involves legal processes, very little can be said publicly. Yet despite that, many members of the public decide not to wait for justice through the courts - instead taking up their pitchforks, forming opinions, and passing judgment with only fragments of information.

It’s a sobering reminder that behind every headline is a human being - and many others affected indirectly: families, colleagues, communities, and organisations drawn into the spotlight, often without choice. The ripple effect can be immense, and once reputations are damaged, even truth and time can struggle to repair them.

During times like these, silence is rarely an option. Even when legal processes limit what can be said, stakeholders - including staff, partners, funders, clients, and the wider community - still need reassurance that leadership is acting responsibly, exercising good governance, meeting legal obligations, and taking the situation seriously.

Saying nothing, or hiding behind a simple “no comment”, rarely protects an organisation. It leaves a vacuum - one that others will quickly fill, or worse, amplifies pressure from the media. Turning up onsite without notice can put unnecessary stress on staff and raise privacy concerns for those directly affected.

When working in particularly pressing, time-sensitive situations, it’s actually a miracle that, as communication practitioners, we manage to say anything at all - especially under tight deadlines. We do it under pressure and intensity, not for damage control, but because the organisation’s stakeholders deserve to hear the truth of the situation before it’s out in the public domain or reported by the media.

Every sentence is scrutinised, weighed, and debated - and for good reason. Incorrect or premature information can resurface later in court or media investigations. Each line often needs sign-off from leadership or the Board Chair, as well as sign off from multiple advisers - sometimes even several sets of lawyers must approve it before anything can be released.  

Leadership under Public Scrutiny

In those moments, I’ve seen the full spectrum of human response: calm and reasoned one minute, then suddenly reactive and deregulated the next. All it takes is one well-meaning adviser, a friend, or a lawyer urging them to “go hard and fight this”, and their tone shifts from measured to combative.

Public criticism is a confronting place for any leader or organisation to stand - navigating scrutiny while trying to hold true to their values and defend themselves, while also considering wider implications, what led to this, and most importantly, the truth.

Through years of issues management and serious crisis communication work, I’ve often found that two truths can exist at the same time - and it’s usually a matter of perspective.

This tension appears constantly. For example, a senior leader stepping down amid serious accusations can have multiple perspectives at play:

• Staff and colleagues may feel shocked, betrayed, or uncertain about the future, wondering how much was known and whether leadership can be trusted again.
• The board or governance team may see the decision as a necessary and responsible action to protect the organisation’s integrity and maintain confidence, or as a legal requirement.
• The individual involved may feel misunderstood, unfairly portrayed, or unable to defend themselves publicly while investigations are underway.
• Funders, or partners may focus on the implications for reputation, questioning how this impacts credibility and accountability.
• The public and media may interpret the story through speculation or assumption, often without access to full context.

Each of these perspectives holds a form of truth - emotional, procedural, or perceptual - but none on their own tell the full story. The challenge for communication professionals in a crisis is to recognise these overlapping realities and communicate in a way that acknowledges complexity without losing integrity.

Our job is to determine, as best we can, the facts and timeline of what has happened, and to assist in communicating clearly and honestly with the stakeholder groups concerned.

That balance between accuracy and timeliness is what defines credibility under pressure. It’s the discipline of speaking both quickly and wisely. Crisis communication isn’t damage control; it’s leadership in its rawest form - making sense of chaos, guiding people through uncertainty, and ensuring every message reflects both truth and due process.

Redeeming the Story - Turning Pressure into Constructive Change

Crisis reveals character - both individual and organisational. It exposes what’s working, what’s weak, and where alignment has slipped. But it also presents an opportunity: the chance to rebuild stronger systems, clearer processes, and deeper trust.

When handled with humility and discipline, controversy becomes a catalyst for change. It forces leadership teams to ask hard questions - not just “how did this happen?” but “what needs to change so it doesn’t happen again?”

That process can be painful, but it’s where real progress happens.

The most effective leaders I've worked with view issues management as leadership development and an opportunity for strengthening the organisation. They view crisis management team training as a necessary and important way to manage risks, and ensure alignment between their values and their actions.

The best way to navigate a crisis is to prepare before it comes. That means building strong two-way communication and genuine relationships with your stakeholders long before the pressure hits.

I’m often surprised by how little genuine communication exists between organisations and their stakeholder groups. (A stakeholder group is any group or individual that can affect whether an organisation reaches its goals). Yet too often, they are only considered when something goes wrong. Strong, two-way communication should be built into every organisational communications strategy for trust, transparency, and alignment.


If your leadership team hasn’t completed Crisis Management Training, your spokesperson needs Media Training, or your Communication Strategy could use a review, we can help. Together, we’ll build the systems, structure, and confidence your organisation needs to speak clearly and wisely when it matters most.

Get in touch to start a confidential conversation.