Enhancing Communication During Crisis Situations

There are always situations in which you need to communicate fast and clearly. Especially in a crisis, in new situations, or when there is time pressure. The STICC protocol helps you achieve this. The STICC Protocol was developed by psychologist Gary Klein as a tool for managing the unexpected. STICC stands for: Situation, Task, Intent, Concerns, Calibrate and is a technique for productive communication about what to do when you face a new, unexpected situation. This is what it means: S - Situation = Here’s what I think we face. The leader summarizes how they see the situation, problem, or crisis at hand. T - Task = Here’s what I think we should do. The leader explains their plan for addressing the situation, problem, or crisis at hand. I - Intent = Here’s why I think this is what we should do. The leader explains the reasons why they think this is the best way of addressing the situation, problem, or crisis at hand. C - Concerns = Here’s what we should keep our eyes on. The leader mentions possible downsides or future consequences of the solution suggested to be taken into account as well. C - Calibrate = Now talk to me and give me your views. The leader asks others in the team to give their feedback and viewpoints, and especially invites them to disagree and add. This technique helps you in managing pressured situations in three ways: First, once something unexpected happens, it helps to develop appropriate responses. The five steps are aimed at discussing with a team what to do in cases that are not familiar. Through its focus on concrete action, on gathering different viewpoints, and on speed, the STICC protocol is a quick way to take appropriate action in new situations. Second, in step 4 (Concerns), you open up the discussion for further uncertainties and other changes that may follow. In this way, you mentally prepare people that there will always remain uncertainties. This helps in developing a crisis-ready mindset that is not only helpful in the current crisis, but also in the next. Third, the fact that a constructive dialogue takes place also facilitates communication and mutual learning. Even though the leader brings the suggestions here, it is the team together that comes to a solution. And while doing that, they learn together and from each other in an open and adaptive way, which helps further prepare them for future crises. My advice: use STICC whenever you have to communicate fast and clearly. === Follow me or subscribe to my Soulful Strategy newsletter for more: https://lnkd.in/e_ytzAgU #communicationtips #agile #teamexercise

I just read a crisis PR plan that someone paid $12,000 for. Journalists got 14 mentions. Reddit got zero. This plan was written in 2025, not 2015. Most are still museum pieces. They go deep on traditional media (which is still important) but miss the platforms where your reputation can be shredded much faster. Here's what I would've added to this strategy (ecommerce, founder-led brand big on socials): 1. LLM audit → Does your brand show up in ChatGPT responses? Citations? What's the framing like? You need a pre-crisis benchmark so you can track recovery. 2. Reddit watch list → Map your brand and category subreddits. Save them in the plan. Reddit conversations move fast and can amplify quickly - you can't afford to discover this during a crisis. 3. TikTok strategy → If your plan just says "monitor socials" it's useless. Who's watching your TikTok? Who drafts DM responses? Does your official statement go up as a video or text post? These aren't nice-to-haves anymore. 4. Influencer protocol → If you work with creators regularly, they belong in your stakeholder matrix. I've seen too many founders scramble when their usual influencer partners suddenly go quiet during a PR storm. The media landscape has REALLY shifted. Your crisis planning needs to catch up.

The best crisis strategy is written in hindsight and used for foresight. I keep a crisis journal. Not to relive the chaos. To learn from it. Every major crisis I've worked on—every headline, every misstep, every win—gets an entry. Not a diary. A debrief. Because the patterns matter more than the individual fires. Here's what I track: ⇢ What happened (the facts, stripped of emotion) ⇢ What we did (our strategy, our messaging, our timeline) ⇢ What worked (the decisions that moved the needle) ⇢ What didn't (the mistakes, the delays, the blind spots) ⇢ What I'd do differently (the hindsight clarity) It's not about shame. It's about evolution. Some of the best crisis strategies I use today came from entries written years ago—when I was scrambling, improvising, and learning in real time. Here's what the journal has taught me: 1.) Patterns repeat across industries. Different companies. Different crises. Same mistakes. Delayed responses. Defensive messaging. Legal-first thinking. When you see the pattern, you can prevent it. 2.) Speed beats perfection. The entries where we moved fast—even imperfectly—almost always ended better than the ones where we waited for perfect clarity. Action creates options. Hesitation creates headlines. 3.) Emotion drives poor decisions. In every crisis, someone wanted to fight back, defend the brand, or go silent out of fear. The entries where we led with strategy instead of emotion? Those are the wins. 4.) The first 48 hours define everything. What you say, when you say it, and who says it—those decisions set the trajectory. Get those right, and you can recover. Get them wrong, and you're playing defense for months. 5.) Most crises are preventable. Looking back, the majority of the crises in my journal didn't have to happen. A policy audit. A difficult conversation. A proactive statement. Small decisions that could have stopped the fire before it started. The crisis journal isn't just a record. It's a playbook. And every entry makes me sharper for the next call at 2 AM. Follow for weekly insights on crisis psychology and leadership under pressure.

In light of the recent gas incident involving Petronas, many have asked why there has been only one official statement and no press conference by the company. It’s a valid question. The answer lies in understanding how national disaster response protocols work in Malaysia—and the role of government-owned companies (GOCs) in such situations. First, it’s important to recognise that crisis management is not public relations. It is a structured and coordinated process involving multiple agencies working under a national framework to save lives, stabilise the situation, and ensure accurate communication—without disrupting ongoing operations or investigations. 1. Activation of the National Disaster Response Under Arahan MKN No. 1 (2022), the National Disaster Management Agency (NADMA) takes the lead when an incident is classified as a major disaster. NADMA coordinates the work of agencies at federal and state levels, including: ▶️ BOMBA: Urban search and rescue, fire suppression ▶️ PDRM: Security, crowd control, family reunification ▶️ MOH: Emergency medical care, mental health support These agencies operate under central command to avoid delays, duplication, or miscommunication. 2. The Role of the Incident Commander When a crisis enters a “red state” (active rescue phase), an Incident Commander is appointed as the sole spokesperson. This ensures consistent, clear communication and protects operational integrity and the privacy of those affected. In this case, BOMBA was appointed Incident Commander, which is why all updates on search and rescue efforts have come from them—entirely in line with protocol. Once the situation is stabilised and the site is handed back to the owner (Petronas), then and only then may the company’s spokesperson issue statements or briefings. 3. Petronas is a Government-Owned Company As a GOC, Petronas follows the national chain of command in crisis situations. In major incidents involving GOCs, the official spokesperson is typically the Government. We’ve seen this before: ▶️MH370: Defence Minister and Prime Minister ▶️LRT Collision: Transport Minister In this instance, the Prime Minister has already addressed the matter and given directives, and that serves as the Government’s—and Petronas’—official position. It is not standard procedure for GOCs to issue separate press briefings during the emergency response phase. Final Thoughts The absence of multiple statements does not signal a lack of action—it reflects adherence to a disciplined and well-established disaster management protocol. Our emergency rescue agencies have worked tirelessly and with professionalism under extremely difficult conditions. Let us give them the space to complete their tasks, and trust that updates will be provided when the time is right, and when it is safe and appropriate to do so.

In 2011, the Amazon Appstore failed on launch and Jeff Bezos was furious. It was my fault, and I handled one aspect of recovery so poorly that one of my engineers quit. I still regret it 14 years later. Please learn from my mistake. The main lesson is that when you are leading through a crisis, it can feel like it is all about you. It isn’t. It is about: 1) Solving the problem 2) Guiding your team through it The product issue was that there were some pretty simple bugs, and we solved those problem well enough that I was eventually promoted. Where I failed was in guiding my team through the crisis. My leadership miss was that I neglected to encourage and support the engineer who had written the bad code. He did a great job stepping up and supporting the effort to fix the problem, but shortly afterward, he resigned. During the crisis, I failed to make clear to him that we did not blame him for the launch failure despite the bugs. I imagine that left room for him to think we blamed him or that he didn’t belong. It is also possible that others did blame him directly and that I was too caught up in the crisis to realize it. Both instances were my responsibility as the leader of the team. His resignation taught me a valuable lesson about leading through a crisis: No matter how bad the situation is, your team must be your first priority. If you make them feel safe, they will move heaven and earth to fix the problem. If you don’t, they may still fix the problem, but the team itself will never be the same. As a leader, here is how you can give them what they need: 1) Take the blame and do not allow others to be blamed. In some bug cases after this we did not release the name of the engineer outside the team in order to protect them from judgment or blame. 2) Separate fixing the problem from figuring out why it happened. Once the problem is fixed, you can focus on root-causing. This lowers the risk of searching for answers getting confused with searching for someone to blame. 3) Realize that anyone involved in the problem already feels bad. High performers know when they have fallen short and let their team down. As a leader you have to show them the path to growth and success after the crisis. They do not need to be beaten up on- they have taken care of that themselves. 4) See crises and problems as growth opportunities, not personal flaws. Your team comes with you in a crisis whether you like it or not, so you might as well come out stronger on the other side. As a leader, the responsibility for a crisis is yours in two ways: The problem itself and the effect it has on the future of the team. Don’t get too caught up in the first to think about the second. Readers- Has your team survived a crisis? How did you handle it?

Air Canada announced today that their CEO would transition at the end of the third quarter after his apology for not delivering his post crash video in French fell flat.   The statement suggest that this was in the works, but it would be safe to presume that recent circumstances may have accelerated that plan. The Air Canada situation isn’t really about language. It’s about preparedness under pressure. In the wake of a fatal accident, every decision carries weight. An English-only message in a legally bilingual, culturally sensitive market didn’t just limit accessibility—it unintentionally signaled distance at a moment that required empathy and proximity. The issue isn’t intent. It’s how that intent was received. It also challenges a common assumption in crisis response: that the CEO must always be the spokesperson. In reality, the first priority is credibility and connection—not hierarchy. If a CEO can’t fully meet the moment, the stronger leadership move is to adapt the messenger, not force the role. And that’s where this becomes a governance and preparedness issue—not just a communications one. This wasn’t a surprise vulnerability. It’s been known for years. In a company with legal bilingual obligations and deep cultural sensitivity in Quebec, the real question is: why wasn’t the response plan built around it? In my career I’ve had the opportunity and priveleage to work with many airlines, and participated in their rigorous preparedness protocols, and in some cases, supporting their actual crisis response.  I can say with certainty that airlines are among the most crisis-prepared organizations in the world. They scenario-plan relentlessly. Which makes this gap more notable—not less. The takeaway: this wasn’t a translation problem. It was a preparedness problem. In moments that matter most, reputation isn’t just shaped by what you say—it’s shaped by whether you planned properly for the moment you knew could be coming.

Is it okay to say 'ended their own life' or 'took their own life'? Well it's certainly better than saying 'committed suicide' which is now generally recognised as a stigmatising and harmful term. It implies that suicide is a crime (it isn't in the UK) or that suicide is a sin (a belief held by an ever decreasing % of the UK population). But even the two alternatives of 'ended their own life' or 'took their own life' can be problematic. The best term to use is 'died by suicide' which is factually correct, non-stigmatised & non-judgemental. I published several posts and an article this year about appropriate language when talking about #suicide, both in everyday conversation and in advocacy & campaigning around #SuicidePrevention or #SuicideReduction, to try to help and not harm. [link to article in reply comments below] This was based on my ongoing research into what is, or is considered to be, 'appropriate' language, and the positive & negative impacts. Language is context-specific and it can impact differently on different people in different circumstances. As I highlighted in my article, some words & phrases can be generally helpful most of the time, but be potentially harmful - the exact same words or phrases! - to those experiencing a suicide crisis. I gave examples, eg saying "There's always hope". Most of the time, for most people, in most situations, this is received positively. But those experiencing a suicide crisis, who feel they've lost all hope, and feel there's no hope at this crisis point in their life, receive this same phrase "There's always hope" negatively. It can come across as 'you're not listening...you don't understand...you don't care', and even have a harmful effect. Some of those I've interviewed said "these things can tip you over the edge"! We must also think very carefully about our campaigns. In one-to-one crisis conversations, we can tailor and take extra care. Campaigns, however, are often designed with a primary target audience in mind and the desire to 'have impact' on this audience, without always thinking about the (adverse) impacts there can be on some sub-sets of the population, including those experiencing a suicide crisis. In my research this year, I've spoken with many people who've experienced a suicide crisis, including those who've been driven to a suicide crisis after being subjected to discrimination, bullying, abuse, humiliation, systemic injustice, and institutionalised cruelty. This was very challenging in many respects, including a challenge to the language we use. These people often say they don't like terms such as 'ended their own life' or 'took their own life' because, at the point of suicide crisis, they felt their life had already ended, or they felt someone or something had taken their life away. Hence why it's always best to say 'died by suicide'. For next week's #Grief Awareness Week, think about those who are still 'alive' but grieving for the loss of their own life!

Trust isn't always eroded by what we say, but sometimes it's about when and how we say it. One of my Seven Trust Languages is Sensitivity: emotional awareness and timing in difficult conversations. And here's what I've learned: this might be the trust language we violate most often without even realizing it. We don't mean to damage trust. We're trying to: 1. Move things forward 2. Help solve the problem 3. Maintain normalcy 4. Show we care But without sensitivity to timing, emotional state, and context, our words land wrong. Some greatest workplace hits: → "Let's circle back when you're less emotional" (dismisses valid concerns) → Scheduling a performance review the day someone returns from bereavement leave (ignores emotional capacity) → "Quick question!" at 5 pm Friday followed by a complex request (disrespects boundaries) The worst part? You might not even know trust was broken. The person just becomes quieter, more withdrawn, less engaged. The relationship shifts, and you can't figure out why. Here's what builds trust through sensitivity: 1. Pause before responding and ask: "What might they be going through that I don't know about?" 2. Listen for what's NOT said, body language, and energy tell you more than words 3. Consider timing: Is this the right moment, or would waiting 24 hours make a difference? 4. Name what you observe: "You seem quieter than usual. Everything okay, or do you need space?" Remember: You can be right about the message and still wrong about the delivery. Sensitivity isn't about being soft; it's about being strategic in how you build and maintain trust. #TrustLanguages #Trust #Leadership #EmotionalIntelligence

The best thing a social manager can do when it comes to responding to breaking news is set up processes before any news breaks. You should first gain a deep understanding of the causes your brand believes in and supports. This includes organizations the brand has donated to or worked with in the past. Documenting this will make it easier to craft statements when something does come up. Next, establish a core “social media breaking news” team. These people all know they will be on call when something comes up. For me this is usually my manager, a copywriter, a designer, a community manager, someone from legal, someone from PR, and potentially the CMO and/or CEO as final approver. Create an email list or Slack group with all of these people on it. Finally, create a decision tree to use when something does come up. Build a framework that helps answer questions like "should we pause?" or "do we need to put out a statement?". This will make decisions easier during high-stress situations.

🚨 The Email That Made 200 Employees Panic The subject line read: “We need to talk.” That was it. No context. No explanation. Within minutes, the office air felt heavier. You could hear chairs creak as people leaned toward each other, whispering: 👉 “Did you see the mail?” 👉 “Do you think layoffs are coming?” 👉 “Why would he say that without details?” The silence in the cafeteria was louder than usual that day. Coffee cups stayed untouched, half-filled. Some stared at their screens, pretending to work, but their fingers hesitated above the keyboard. One manager later told me it felt like “a ticking clock in the background you can’t turn off.” What was meant to be a simple one-on-one call turned into an organization-wide anxiety spiral. Productivity dipped. Trust cracked. By evening, HR’s inbox was full of panicked questions. ⸻ 💡 When I stepped in as a trainer, the leader admitted: “I just didn’t think one line could create so much fear.” And that’s the truth: Leaders often underestimate the power of their words. A vague message is like sending a flare into the sky—everyone sees it, no one knows what it means, but everyone assumes the worst. We worked together on Crisis Communication Frameworks: • Lead with clarity: “I’d like to connect regarding Project X progress this Friday.” • Add emotional context: “No concerns—just a quick alignment call.” • Close with certainty: “This will help us stay on track as a team.” The difference? Next time he wrote an email, instead of panic, his team replied with thumbs-up emojis. Calm replaced chaos. ⸻ 🎯 Learning: Leadership isn’t just about strategy—it’s about how you sound in the small moments. One vague sentence can break trust. One clear message can build it back. If your leaders are unintentionally creating chaos through unclear communication, let’s talk. Because the cost of poor communication isn’t just morale—it’s millions. ⸻ #LeadershipCommunication #CrisisCommunication #ExecutivePresence #LeadershipSkills #CommunicationMatters #Fortune500 #TopCompanies #CXOLeadership #FutureOfWork #OrganizationalExcellence #StorytellingForLeaders #LeadershipDevelopment #CorporateTraining #ProfessionalGrowth #PeopleFirstLeadership