Who’s looking out for the crisis communicator?
The psychological and emotional toll on practitioners is a strategic blind spot in crisis communication. It’s time we addressed the human element of crisis communications.
When the world locked down in 2020, corporate communications and public relations teams became the first responders in the ensuing emergency. We supported organisations with the public health emergency, the shift to home working, and the recovery that followed. However, while communication strategies have evolved rapidly, the impact of the crisis on communicators themselves has been largely overlooked.
In her latest editorial for Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Martina Topic-Rutherford lays out a case for a more behavioural approach to crisis research. She challenges the field to look beyond attribution theory developed in psychology and Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) to incorporate the human factors of emotion, well-being, and the personal cost of professional resilience.
The emotional labour of leading through crisis
The People, Pressure, and Purpose report, which I researched and produced for The PR Network, brings real-world context to Topic-Rutherford’s concerns. The research project, based on interviews with 25 senior communication leaders, reports on the emotional strain on public relations management in an international context.
Emotional labour is unacknowledged
Many practitioners report having to “hold up a mirror to the organisation” during crises. They manage internal expectations while remaining composed and confident. It’s work that is often invisible and rarely rewarded.
Burnout is common
Communicators are expected to “follow the sun”, often starting early and finishing late to cover global time zones. “At some point, something’s got to give,” one leader warned.
Isolation is rising
Mental health challenges, particularly in remote or under-resourced teams, are a real concern. Practitioners admit it’s hard to say “I’m not okay” in a role that demands constant calm and control.
Topic-Rutherford’s editorial notes how this aligns with broader psychological findings on the impacts of isolation and strain on interpersonal relationships during and after the pandemic. Yet, this kind of behavioural insight is rarely integrated into crisis preparation and planning, let alone research.
The need to shift from strategy to self-awareness
We’ve built sophisticated models to understand how stakeholders react in crises. SCCT helps determine whether the public blames the organisation or the situation and what kind of response is required. But Topic-Rutherford asks: what about the practitioners making those decisions?
What do they attribute crises to?
How do their emotions shape their advice?
How do they cope with sustained exposure to reputational risk, fear, or public anger?
This is a strategic issue for organisations and management. If we expect public relations practitioners to manage public emotions, we must also manage their own. Ignoring the human element risks poor decision-making, high turnover, and weakened organisational resilience.
Further reading
This essay was originally posted on my Substack. The newsletter is read by more than 5,000 communications and public relations practitioners twice a week. We take a slower, critical perspective to distilling news, research and industry developments into actionable briefings to help you at work.
