In times of crisis, one truth stands out: disunity inside the company can be more damaging than the crisis itself. I've led crisis communication for CEOs, governments, and brands in various countries. And I've seen it time and time again—when a scandal breaks, internal silos between legal, comms, and leadership become louder than the actual issue. Everyone wants control. No one wants responsibility. That is a huge pain for experts, and at times it is very tough to work in such environments. Here's the brutal irony: when the PR team suggests transparency, legal calls to minimize liability. When the board calls for silence, communications warns: "that is the story now." The result? Delayed action, tone-deaf messaging, if any, and reputation damage that lasts far beyond the crisis. The most successful organizations I've advised have one thing in common: a pre-established crisis plan that defines clear ownership, alignment, and speed. This is the first thing I tell them , when I take a new client - we need a crisis strategy for you before even a crisis breaks. Non-negotiables I recommend to every company 1. Create a unified crisis plan—before it's needed. Legal, PR, board reps, and operations must sit at the same table with pre-agreed decision pathways. Who leads public response? Who has veto power? Decide this now—not while trending on the news. 2. Respect roles. Prioritize perception. Legal manages legal risk. PR manages public trust. Both are vital, but a legal win with a destroyed reputation is no win at all. Keep this in mind 3. Speed beats perfection. A half-formed but human response in the first 3 hours can preserve credibility. Waiting 3 days for a flawless legal statement? That's a loss. And believe me, I have had so many cases, where we would send the responses back and forth for so many times, that by the time it was approved, would already be too late. 4. The fewer people speak - the better. No comment on this 5. Do not be afraid to say "I don't have information on the matter yet, working to find out". You are a human, show your humane side. Own the narrative and make sure that you are the one crafting it. In a crisis, the public only sees one company. So it must speak as one. Alignment isn't optional—it's everything. Emma Sargsyan is a global PR, crisis communications strategist, keynote speaker, and founder of Saege International. She helps governments, public figures, and global brands become unignorable in the moments that matter most.
Hi there, I'm Mary Sahagun, a PR & Communications Strategist with a background in aviation and crisis communications. I've worked with companies undergoing high-stakes moments—restructures, public backlash, founder exits—where the real damage wasn't external, it was internal misalignment. In my experience, here's the truth most crisis playbooks ignore: every stakeholder thinks they're protecting the company, but they're really protecting their function. Legal wants control, PR wants clarity, the board wants distance—and no one's speaking the same emotional language. That's where the breakdown begins. The way I see it is that the strategy might be solid, but if internal trust isn't pre-established, decisions stall, narratives clash, and your public response suffers. One method I use is a "Crisis Language Calibration" — a pre-crisis session that uncovers how each group defines success. It's a simple step, but crucial: if your legal team sees success as zero liability and your comms team sees it as public transparency, you're already misaligned. I'd be happy to share more on how I navigate this before it becomes costly. Best, Mary Sahagun Founder & Communications Strategist, TargetLink Website: https://targetlink.us/
In a corporate crisis, alignment across leadership, legal, and communications functions is often the most critical factor in effective resolution. The key is to establish a crisis governance structure before the pressure hits. This means defining a clear decision-making hierarchy that includes legal, communications, and executive leadership, but ultimately ensures the CEO or appointed crisis lead retains authority. Without this, you end up managing internal politics instead of the actual crisis. When disagreements arise during a live issue, it's vital to recognise the different lenses: Legal counsel seeks to limit liability, PR teams focus on public perception, and boards are driven by governance and long-term impact. The resolution lies in reframing the conversation around business risk—what option poses the least operational, legal, and reputational harm to the organisation as a whole. That shared objective can unify divergent views. I've advised CEOs and boards through crises involving regulatory investigations, leadership transitions, reputational threats, and M&A fallout. As Managing Director of CJPI, I support organisations in navigating challenges where strategic clarity and internal alignment are essential. I'm also a Fellow of the Institute of Leadership, with a background as a CEO in an emergency services provider.
Whenever a corporate crisis occurs, managing cross-functional departments becomes increasingly vital, especially legal council, PR teams, and operations. Balancing their priorities while maintaining harmony can be overwhelming. The solution begins long before a crisis strikes. So it's essential to build a crisis management framework proactively with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, protocols, and escalation paths. Also, use representatives from each function to create a team that is empowered to act decisively and in sync with each other. The key to remember is that in a crisis, depending on its intensity, the tension often arises because each department has its own priorities. Legal teams focus on minimizing liabilities, PR manages reputation, and the board typically prioritizes shareholders' impact and long-term risks. Everyone is doing their job but aligning them all is the need of the hour during a crisis. Taking balanced decisions, and following a unified standard process helps in aligning goals and understanding priorities as a whole. Above all, the organization shall reflect a single message to the public and amplify the crisis in the best way possible. Also, conducting a full debrief about what worked, what stalled, and where there is a need of further fixing helps in navigating through hard times with clarity, speed, and cohesion.
The approach must be systematic, with a clear and logical progression between each step and thorough documentation throughout. The first step is for the board and in-house counsel to work together to establish an accurate and reliable set of facts. Once the facts are confirmed, in-house counsel should coordinate with outside counsel to identify the key legal issues, assess potential implications, and define the company's overall objectives. With the legal framework and business risks clearly outlined, the next step is to prioritize these objectives based on urgency, legal exposure, and reputational impact. From there, the team should develop a coordinated action plan that aligns legal, communications, and operational responses. In any crisis, there are essential non-negotiables—actions that must be taken immediately to protect the company's legal position, comply with regulatory obligations, or safeguard stakeholders. These critical items must be clearly identified and prioritized as part of the initial response.
As an expert witness retained by the Maryland Attorney General's office for digital reputation management and an international marketing psychology specialist, I've steerd complex crisis situations where stakeholder alignment was critical. The key challenge in crisis management is often conflicting priorities. When working with healthcare organizations facing reputation threats, I established a "priority alignment session" where each stakeholder group (legal, board, PR) had 15 minutes to present their core concerns without interruption, followed by a facilitated discussion focused exclusively on shared objectives. What worked consistently was creating a crisis command structure with clear decision authority. During a client's data breach situation, we designated a single crisis lead with final decision authority while establishing clear parameters from legal counsel on non-negotiable boundaries. This prevented the paralysis that occurs when everyone has equal input but nobody has final authority. Your crisis management framework should operate like a nested set of priorities: legal compliance as the outer boundary, strategic business continuity as the middle layer, and reputation management as the inner core. When done right, all three objectives can be achieved simultaneously rather than traded against each other.
As the founder of Reputation911, I've spent 15 years navigating boardroom conflicts during corporate crises. The most critical success factor is establishing a unified command structure before the crisis hits, not during it. I recently worked with a healthcare technology firm facing contradictory advice between legal and PR teams. Our solution was implementing a decision matrix that clarified which stakeholder had final authority based on crisis type - regulatory issues defaulted to legal, while public perception matters gave PR teams greater weight in the decision process. The key insight many organizations miss is that crisis resolution requires designated "tie-breakers" - typically either the CEO or a senior executive with cross-departmental authority. When teams remain deadlocked despite the decision matrix, this person must be empowered to make time-sensitive calls without committee approval. Real-time documentation of decision rationales has proven invaluable. We implemented a crisis management dashboard where all stakeholders could see developing situations, contribute insights, and understand final decisions. This transparency prevented the common "blindside" scenario where departments felt their concerns were ignored.
During the rapid expansion of Dirty Dough Cookies, I learned that assigning a neutral third-party mediator to facilitate crisis discussions between different departments can prevent emotional decision-making and power struggles. Last year, when facing a major supply chain disruption, I established daily 15-minute stand-ups between our board, legal team, and PR department, which helped us maintain alignment while moving quickly to resolve the issue.
The biggest breakdown I've seen in a corporate crisis isn't the incident itself, it's the internal conflict about how to respond. Legal wants to limit liability. PR wants to control the message. The board wants to protect reputation. Executives want resolution. In the scramble for control, clarity often disappears. That is where I step in. Not as a fixer, but as a neutral crisis integrator. I create the structure and space for clarity, accountability, and decisive action when trust is low and tensions are high. My role is not to choose sides, but to bring alignment that helps the organization move forward. One strategy I use is called "Two Truths and a Tension." Each stakeholder shares: 1. The non-negotiable truth their function must protect 2. The truth their audience already believes 3. The tension they cannot resolve on their own This approach reframes the conversation around shared ownership. In a high-stakes government tech failure, it helped legal, PR, and operations realign within 72 hours without escalating conflict. During a leadership ethics crisis, I introduced a dissenting voice to every executive meeting. Not to create friction, but to challenge assumptions before the public or press did. That one move helped the organization avoid preventable missteps and communicate with credibility. In another case, I used an anonymous values poll with senior leaders and the board. "Preserving public trust" ranked higher than "minimizing legal fallout," even among legal counsel. That consensus shifted how the crisis was handled, making room for transparency while still managing risk. Crisis doesn't just test policies. It tests alignment. The strongest organizations are not the ones that avoid conflict, but the ones that manage it through clear structure and courageous communication. Crisis management is not about control. It is about coherence, and knowing how to lead when priorities collide. I advise organizations through complex transformation, workforce risk, and internal conflict, especially when leadership priorities compete. Trained in strategic and business communication with a focus on workforce risk. I have supported executive teams in both public and private sectors during restructures, investigations, and transitions. My related work includes facilitating crisis war rooms, building decision frameworks, drafting sensitive communications, and leading post-crisis realignment to restore clarity, protect trust, and move forward with integrity
One of the biggest mistakes we've seen companies make during a crisis is allowing internal politics or blame games to delay action. Our advice? Establish a clear crisis command structure before a crisis hits with defined roles, a unified communication chain, and a documented SOP. If the board, legal counsel, and PR teams are pulling in different directions during an active crisis, you're already losing valuable time and control of the narrative. In these situations, the goal isn't to win internal debates or assign blame, it's to contain the damage, protect the company's reputation, safeguard its legal standing, and maintain stakeholder trust. That requires a pre-agreed crisis protocol where each party understands their scope and limitations. Legal's job is to mitigate liability. PR's job is to preserve credibility and trust. The board's job is to make strategic decisions. These teams must collaborate, not compete. When disagreements arise, the crisis leader or incident commander (ideally someone trained in both risk communication and business continuity) should have final decision-making authority, informed by input from all sides. The time to argue strategy is before the storm, not in the middle of it.
In moments of crisis, the most effective organizations resolve differences among boards, legal counsel, PR teams, and other stakeholders by establishing a unified governance structure before the crisis hits. This means clearly defined roles, pre-approved escalation protocols, and a cross-functional crisis team empowered to make swift, aligned decisions. When disagreements arise during a crisis, the CEO—or an appointed Crisis Leader—must act as the integrator, ensuring decisions are guided by both legal risk and reputational impact. I've led or advised Fortune 500 companies through crises involving product recalls, regulatory investigations, activist interventions, and executive misconduct. In each case, success hinged not on perfect information but on disciplined alignment and real-time transparency across all functions. To achieve this, I recommend: Crisis Simulations to stress-test alignment in peacetime. Pre-agreed Decision Matrices that clarify who leads and who consults. A Single Source of Truth for internal and external communications. Most importantly, the board and leadership must trust their people and their process—while leaving room to adapt as the situation evolves. Credentials: I've held senior leadership roles in global strategy, marketing, and commercial operations at GE Healthcare, Microsoft, Honeywell, and Pearson. I've advised CEOs and boards on crisis response, cross-functional governance, and brand protection in highly regulated industries. I am a graduate of the Wharton School (MBA) and Harvard University (AB), and a former board governance committee member for the Healthcare Businesswomen's Association. Contact: Ozge (Gale) Kurtoglu ozge.saritosun@gmail.com | (978) 493-2322 LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/ozgesaritosun
Having managed various crisis situations at Lusha, I've learned that disagreements often stem from different teams optimizing for their specific goals rather than the company's overall wellbeing. During our recent data breach scare, our legal team wanted complete silence while PR pushed for transparency - we resolved it by creating a shared document where each team listed their non-negotiables and areas of flexibility. My recommendation is to focus first on finding common ground between teams, then work outward from there to address specific concerns, always keeping customer trust as the north star.
Internal conflicts between different departments worsen the impact of corporate crises. The board of directors aims to defend corporate image while legal teams assess risks and PR teams attempt to control the narrative. When teams fail to collaborate chaos becomes the dominant force. The solution requires everyone to establish alignment before problems arise. A clear plan should define leadership roles and team responsibilities. Your organization will be prepared to respond effectively during a crisis because you have established a unified approach. A single leader should guide the organization to convert disagreements into collaborative efforts. Organizations that implement this approach survive crises better than they did before the crisis. Don't fear the disagreements. The pushback from boards and legal and PR teams demonstrates their genuine concern. The key lies in directing this energy toward productive uses. The teams should receive an opportunity to express their concerns during the initial stages. The approach prevents issues from developing into major problems. The goal is not to avoid conflicts but to utilize them as opportunities for success.
Follow these steps: 1. Establish a Crisis Command Structure Before a Crisis Occurs Crisis Management Plan: The best companies prepare before a crisis with a clear, approved crisis response plan. This includes: Defined roles and responsibilities. Pre-established chains of command. An empowered Crisis Response Team (CRT) that includes key representatives from the board, legal, PR, HR, compliance, and operations. Crisis Lead/Spokesperson: Appoint a single decision-making lead (e.g., CEO or crisis manager) to ensure unity and quick action. 2. Align Around a Shared Set of Objectives Each department has a different focus: Legal is risk-averse, focusing on liability and protecting the company legally. PR/Comms wants to protect the brand reputation and maintain public trust. The Board is often focused on governance, shareholder concerns, and long-term consequences. Crisis experts advise creating a shared crisis response framework, prioritizing: Protection of people (employees, customers, community). Transparency and trust (credibility and honesty). Compliance with the law. Minimizing brand and financial harm. Having this framework agreed upon before a crisis is essential. During a crisis, refer back to these values to resolve disagreements. 3. Use a Facilitated Rapid Alignment Meeting When there are active disagreements: Bring in a neutral facilitator or crisis consultant (internal or external) to mediate. Get everyone in the room (virtually or physically) for a rapid alignment session with these goals: Establish the current facts. Define the immediate risk landscape. Hear from each stakeholder group. Prioritize the next 24-72 hours. Decide who leads on communication and legal risk mitigation. This is a time for "yes, and", not "either/or." For example: Legal may advise no comment, but PR can craft a holding statement that's factual and non-damaging. The board may want a delay, but PR and legal can explain how the news cycle will move with or without them. 4. Scenario Planning and Message Testing Develop multiple response scenarios with tiered messaging (what's said publicly, what's said to regulators, what's said to staff). Test statements through multiple lenses (legal risk, public sentiment, stakeholder impact). Use war rooms or simulations to stress-test potential decisions before going live.
As a trauma therapist and EMDRIA Approved Consultant who trains other therapists, I've managed complex stakeholder dynamics during crisis situations. When coordinating the NYC Trauma Recovery Network during the pandemic, I steerd conflicts between healthcare organizations, first responders, and mental health providers who had different priorities for emergency response protocols. Crisis resolution requires a trauma-informed approach to organizational conflict. I find that identifying the underlying threat responses driving each stakeholder position (fight/flight/freeze) helps move beyond surface disagreements. Board members often operate from protection instincts while legal counsel focuses on containment - recognizing these patterns creates space for integration. Clear communication boundaries prevent information silos that escalate conflicts. As faculty at the Parnell Institute, I've implemented communication structures that require documenting decision points and ensuring all parties receive the same information simultaneously, which prevents the "telephone game" effect that often derails crisis management. The most successful crisis resolutions I've facilitated involve scheduled timeouts where each stakeholder articulates their primary feared outcome rather than their preferred solution. This shifts the conversation from positional bargaining to shared risk management, creating collaborative problem-solving even among previously entrenched parties.
I'm a trauma specialist, not a corporate crisis manager, but I do have experience navigating complex conflicts between leadership teams. As co-founder of Pittsburgh Center for Integrative Therapy, I've worked alongside my business partner to resolve differences between our training team, clinical staff, and administrative personnel during periods of organizational change. The most effective approach I've found is creating structured dialogue that acknowledges all stakeholders' perspectives before moving to resolution. For example, when developing our trauma treatment training program, our clinical team prioritized comprehensive content while our business advisors pushed for condensed formats. We established clear decision-making protocols that required all parties to articulate their primary concerns before developing integrated solutions. In January 2025, I'm co-leading an ethics training that specifically addresses managing conflicting priorities within treatment teams. The key insight I've learned is that unaddressed power dynamics often drive apparent content disagreements. Establishing a neutral facilitator with clear authority to guide the process toward resolution typically works better than seeking unanimous consensus. I recommend documenting the decision-making process transparently so all stakeholders understand how their input was considered, even when the final direction doesn't fully align with their preferred approach. This creates organizational trust that survives beyond the immediate crisis.