The strongest communications teams are not waiting for a crisis to become a communications problem.
There is a familiar moment in organizational life: something has gone wrong, the issue is moving quickly, and someone finally says, “We need communications.”
By then, communications is often being asked to solve a problem it did not create and cannot solve with language alone.
That is why I think one of the most important shifts in public relations is not happening in media relations at all. It is happening upstream, where communications is moving closer to operations, customer experience, leadership and decision-making.
Axios recently reported that senior communications leaders are increasingly working directly with operational teams to identify and resolve smaller issues before they become larger reputational problems. United Airlines’ communications leadership, for example, described a closer link between communications and operations as a way to detect passenger issues earlier and intervene before they escalate.
That is a much more consequential definition of PR than “writing the statement.”
A public statement is usually the visible end of a much longer chain of decisions.
Before an organization says anything publicly, someone has already decided what happened, who owns the problem, whether the issue is isolated or systemic, what action will be taken, what can be disclosed, how quickly the organization can move and which stakeholders matter most.
If those decisions are weak, communications inherits the weakness.
A carefully written response cannot compensate for an unclear owner. A polished apology cannot substitute for a remedy. A spokesperson cannot credibly promise a change that the organization has not resourced. And a social team cannot “manage the conversation” if customers are still experiencing the problem in real time.
The communications challenge is therefore often an operating-model challenge in disguise.
The organizations that handle issues well tend to know about them before everyone else does.
That sounds obvious, but it changes the role of the communications function. The team is no longer only a distributor of messages. It becomes part of the organization’s sensing system.
Customer complaints, media questions, employee concerns, social listening, stakeholder calls, search behaviour and frontline feedback are not merely communications inputs. Together, they can reveal where expectations and operations are beginning to diverge.
A sudden cluster of questions can tell you that a policy is confusing. Repeated complaints can show that what looks like an isolated service issue is becoming a pattern. A journalist asking the same question that employees have already raised may indicate that an internal concern is about to become an external one.
The value is not in collecting more dashboards. It is in giving those signals somewhere to go.
Most organizations have an approval process for communications. Fewer have a clear process for deciding when communications intelligence should trigger an operational response.
That distinction matters.
A useful escalation architecture answers five questions in sequence: What are we seeing? Who has the authority to verify it? Who can change the underlying condition? What do affected audiences need to know now? What evidence will demonstrate that the response worked?
Notice that only one of those questions is primarily about messaging.
That is the point.
Good crisis communications begins by making sure the organization can make a good crisis decision.
There is also a governance implication here.
Communications cannot function as an effective reputation adviser if it is brought in only after operational decisions are final. By that stage, the team is often limited to explaining a choice it did not help stress-test.
The more senior communications becomes, the less useful it is to define the function by outputs: press releases, talking points, posts, speeches and media coverage.
At executive level, the contribution is judgment.
What will different audiences infer from this decision? Where are we creating avoidable ambiguity? Which promise are we making implicitly? Is the operational reality consistent with the story leadership wants to tell? What happens when this decision leaves the room?
Those are management questions with communications consequences.
I use a simple framework in my work: Decision → Audience → Message → Movement.
The order matters.
If the organization begins with the message, it is already too late to interrogate the decision that created the communications problem.
Start with the decision. Understand who is affected and what they need. Determine what must be communicated. Then look for evidence of movement: did confusion decrease, did behaviour change, did the underlying issue improve, did trust stabilize?
That is a different way to evaluate PR. The question is no longer simply whether the message landed. It is whether communications helped the organization make and execute a better decision.
The communications teams with the greatest strategic value will increasingly be the ones that can see around corners because they are connected to the systems where problems actually begin.
They will still write statements. They will still manage media, content, executives and reputation.
But the most important work may happen before any of that is visible.
PR does not start when the organization is ready to speak.
It starts when the organization first has something consequential to decide.
New writing on strategy, communications and public decisions, sent when it’s published.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime by replying to any email.
Romain Williams is a strategist and communications leader working across campaigns, public affairs, reputation, crisis communications and institutional decision-making. Her work focuses on how organizations move from decision to audience, message and action.
Read the Decision Line →Bring me the situation.