A Crisis Plan Is Only as Good as the Last Time You Practiced It

Every organization has a crisis communication plan.

At least that's what leaders often tell themselves.

Somewhere on a shared drive, in a binder on a shelf, or buried inside a policy manual is a document outlining how the organization intends to respond when something goes wrong. The plan identifies spokespersons, approval processes, media procedures, and communication channels. On paper, it often looks impressive.

The problem is that many crisis communication plans are never truly operationalized.

Over the years, I've worked in healthcare communications, nonprofit leadership, community organizations, agency leadership, and public affairs. I've also spent enough time around political campaigns to know that reputation management is not an occasional activity. It happens every day. Every interaction, every statement, every decision, and every response either strengthens trust or weakens it. The same principle applies to crisis communication. Organizations don't suddenly become prepared when a crisis occurs. They reveal how prepared they were before it happened.

A binder is not a crisis plan

I've reviewed crisis communication plans that were dozens of pages long. They identified potential scenarios, outlined approval processes, included media response templates, and documented communication procedures. On paper, they looked excellent.

The problem was that many had never been tested.

Contact information was outdated. Leadership teams had changed. Employees weren't sure where information would come from during an emergency. Communications procedures existed, but few people had practiced them. The organization technically had a plan, but the plan wasn't part of its operational reality.

A crisis communication plan should function more like a fire drill than a policy manual. Leaders should understand their responsibilities. Employees should know where information comes from. Communications staff should know who approves messaging. Everyone should understand who speaks on behalf of the organization and who does not.

The best crisis plans are not simply documented.

They're practiced.

Pressure reveals preparation

One lesson I've learned throughout my career is that pressure has a way of exposing weaknesses that may go unnoticed during normal operations.

A confusing approval process becomes painfully obvious when reporters are calling. An unclear chain of command becomes a problem when decisions need to be made in minutes rather than days. Gaps in internal communication become impossible to ignore when employees learn about an issue through social media before hearing from leadership.

What appears to be a communication failure during a crisis is often a preparation failure that existed long before the crisis began.

The organizations that respond most effectively rarely do so because they create a brilliant strategy in the middle of an emergency. They respond effectively because expectations, procedures, and responsibilities were established beforehand. When pressure arrives, preparation becomes visible.

Who speaks for the organization?

One of the most important questions every organization should answer is remarkably simple: Who speaks for the organization?

The answer should never be determined in the middle of a crisis.

Who responds to media inquiries? Who communicates with employees? Who updates customers, patients, donors, or stakeholders? Who approves public statements? Who serves as a backup spokesperson when key leaders are unavailable? Just as importantly, who is not authorized to speak publicly on behalf of the organization?

I've seen situations where well-intentioned individuals attempted to help by sharing information that was incomplete, outdated, or inconsistent with official messaging. The result was additional confusion at the exact moment clarity was most needed. Strong organizations establish those expectations long before they are tested.

Trust is built before you need it

Political campaigns provide a daily reminder of this reality. Candidates do not build their reputations on Election Day. They spend months or years establishing credibility through thousands of interactions, statements, decisions, and public appearances. By the time voters cast a ballot, most have already formed opinions based on a long history of observed behavior.

Organizations operate the same way.

Patients, customers, employees, donors, and community members evaluate crisis communication through the lens of prior experience. Before they evaluate the message itself, they evaluate the credibility of the messenger. If transparency, consistency, and accountability existed before the crisis, audiences are far more likely to extend grace when challenges arise.

Trust is not built during a crisis.

Trust is tested during a crisis.

The bottom line

The Public Relations Society of America has long emphasized that crisis preparedness is not a one-time exercise. It is an ongoing process of planning, training, relationship building, and communication readiness. Effective organizations understand that principle. They don't simply create crisis plans. They practice them, update them, and incorporate them into daily operations.

Every organization should have a crisis communication plan. More importantly, every organization should know how to use it. A binder on a shelf may satisfy a policy requirement, but a practiced plan protects trust, strengthens leadership, and helps organizations navigate difficult situations with confidence.

The most important crisis communication work almost always happens before anyone realizes a crisis is coming.