The first three hours of a crisis: what is really decided

What is at stake before the press release

In the first hours of a crisis, an organisation does not yet know what happened, nor what will happen. It does know three things: that an event has occurred, that it calls for a response, and that others will speak before it if it does not.

The first three hours are not a magic unit. Depending on the situation, the useful window is counted in minutes or in days. But that is where three elements that will weigh later are set: the quality of the first fact, the credibility of the first word, and the ability to reconstruct what was decided.

The three-column rule

The first task is not to write, but to sort. Three columns are enough.

Established. What is known from a direct, dated and verifiable source. A confirmed incident, a place, a time, a measure taken. This column is short at the start, and that is normal.

Doubtful. What we believe we know without being able to confirm it: a probable cause, a figure heard, an assumed responsibility. These elements must not enter a public statement without being qualified.

Unknown. What is not yet known, and must be named as such. Acknowledging uncertainty is not weakness: it is what prevents having to contradict yourself later.

This discipline has an immediate effect. It prevents a hypothesis from becoming a commitment, and it gives those who speak a common base. It also produces a record: the columns fill up over the hours, and reconstruction becomes possible.

The first word is not the last

A first statement does not need to explain everything. It must answer three questions: what happened, what are you doing, when will you give the next information. The rest can wait.

Three qualities make it solid.

Be true. A false sentence costs more than silence. If the information is not confirmed, it is not said.

Be dated. "At 14:20, we observed…" is better than "we observed". The date protects the speaker and allows the evolution to be followed.

Be revisable. A statement that announces a next update can evolve without looking like a reversal. A definitive statement cannot.

The opposite temptation is to reassure too quickly. A promise of a return to normal, a categorical denial or an accusation against a third party commit the organisation on facts it does not yet control.

Who decides, who speaks, who records

A crisis is handled by three roles, which must not be confused.

The decision. An identified leader, with a clear mandate and the capacity to arbitrate quickly. Without a mandate, the crisis team deliberates without deciding.

The word. A designated spokesperson, with a deputy, prepared and briefed on the three columns. A single voice does not mean that nobody else speaks: it means that nobody speaks outside the frame.

The record. One person keeps a time-stamped log of facts, decisions, sources and communications. This document is not a report: it is the operational memory of the crisis.

The log has a virtue that is barely visible during the crisis and decisive after it. It shows who decided what, on which information, and at what moment. It feeds the lessons-learned review, and it protects the organisation if its conduct is challenged.

The most costly mistake: waiting to understand everything

Many organisations delay the first statement to avoid saying something false. The intention is good; the effect is often the opposite.

During that silence, others speak: witnesses, unions, customers, competitors, social media. The void is filled with hypotheses, and the organisation will then have to correct not only the facts, but also the impression of having hidden something.

The right sequence is therefore not "understand, then speak". It is "qualify, speak about what is established, announce what comes next, keep learning". It is less comfortable, and it is more solid.

What research says about uncertainty

Karl Weick's work on sensemaking sheds light on that particular moment when an organisation must act without having understood. In a now standard article, Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld describe sensemaking as a process through which actors build a plausible interpretation of what is happening, then act on that interpretation (Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld, 2005).

Two practical consequences follow. First, the interpretation is built with the information available, not with the information one would like to have. Second, it is provisional: an organisation that freezes its narrative too early deprives itself of the ability to correct it.

The ISO 22301 standard, devoted to business continuity management systems, adds a useful complement: it requires the response to be organised, roles to be defined and arrangements to be tested before the event. On the day, the quality of the response depends largely on what was prepared upstream.

What it changes for a board

Three decisions are taken before the crisis, not during it.

Designate the roles. Who decides, who speaks, who records, who informs the teams. An untested crisis chart is an intention, not an arrangement.

Prepare a first statement. A statement frame, with the three questions and the three columns, avoids writing in a hurry.

Accept uncertainty. An organisation able to say "we do not know yet, here is what we are doing and when we will come back to you" is more credible than one that claims to control everything.

On this ground, see crisis communications. For upstream fact-checking, see Open sources: what a firm really sees.