Who should speak for a company when something goes wrong?
The right spokesperson is usually the most credible person who can speak accurately and calmly, and that is often not the most senior one. It must also be decided before the crisis, not during it.
When an organisation is under pressure, the instinct is to put the chief executive in front of the cameras. Sometimes that is right. In a serious situation, where public trust is at stake, visible leadership matters, and people want to hear from someone with authority.
But it is not always the best choice.
A few questions help.
Who knows the subject? A spokesperson who cannot answer follow-up questions damages trust quickly. In a clinical, technical or financial crisis, a specialist who can explain the substance may be more credible than a general leader.
Who can stay composed? Live interviews under pressure are a skill. Calm, clear, human delivery matters as much as the words.
Who has the authority to commit? A spokesperson who has to keep saying “I’ll need to check” looks evasive. They need to know what can be said and be trusted to say it.
Who has been prepared? Media training before a crisis is far more effective than a quick briefing in the middle of one.
In many situations the strongest approach is a structure: a lead spokesperson, one or two named alternates, and subject experts who can be drawn in when needed. Everyone should know their role, and everyone should be working from the same agreed facts.
The more sensitive the issue, the more structure helps. Formal briefing documents, agreed statements and close day-to-day coordination reduce the risk of contradiction, which is one of the quickest ways to lose a story.
Above all, the answer needs to exist before it is needed. Organisations that wait until something goes wrong lose the first, most important hours deciding something that could have been settled calmly months before.
It is one of the least glamorous parts of communications, and one of the most valuable.