Reputations don’t fall apart during press conferences. They fall apart in private conversations with your team.
Before the statement.
Before the lawyers finalize language.
Before the media calls.
Crisis exposure starts internally.
When pressure rises, executives often shift into control mode.
Tighter messaging. Fewer voices. More distance.
It feels strategic.
But inside the organization, people are listening for something else.
Ownership. Clarity. Steadiness.
The leaders who protect reputation long term don’t default to defensiveness.
They say:
“I was wrong.” “What’s your take?”
“I trust you.” “We’ll figure this out.”
Those words do more than motivate.
They lower internal panic.
They align legal and communications before tension escalates.
They prevent small issues from turning into cultural fractures.
External reputation is a reflection of internal leadership.
If your language fractures trust behind closed doors, no press strategy will repair it.
Leadership under pressure is measured in tone, not talking points.
Every leader faces a defining moment. Preparation starts here.
Follow for weekly insights on crisis PR and reputation management.
Every communication professional should understand this:
Crisis communication is not only about responding when things go wrong. It is the strategic management of information, perception, and trust under pressure.
It is how you speak when stakes are high, emotions are elevated, and people are watching closely.
Handled well, it can preserve credibility. Handled poorly, it can damage years of trust in a matter of hours.
So what should every communication professional know?
- Before a Crisis (Preparation is your advantage)
Prepare before the crisis, not during it.
The strongest organizations do not improvise crisis communication. They plan for it. They define protocols, assign roles, and anticipate scenarios. Preparation is what allows composure under pressure.
This also means knowing your risks, aligning leadership, and ensuring everyone understands how communication will flow when it matters most.
Because when a crisis hits, confusion inside the organization will always show up outside.
- During a Crisis (This is where trust is tested)
a. First, speed matters; but accuracy matters more.
Silence creates a vacuum, and that vacuum will be filled with speculation. But rushing out unverified information can worsen the situation. The balance is to respond quickly, while ensuring what you say is grounded and reliable.
b. Second, acknowledge before you explain.
In a crisis, people are not just looking for information; they are looking for reassurance. Acknowledge the issue clearly, show awareness., then provide context. Skipping acknowledgment often comes across as avoidance or insensitivity.
c. Third, control the narrative early.
If you do not define what is happening, others will define it for you. The first few communications in a crisis often shape public perception long after the situation is resolved.
d. Fourth, consistency builds trust.
Mixed messages from different spokespeople create confusion and weaken credibility. Align internally before speaking externally. One message, clearly delivered.
5. Fifth, tone is as important as content.
In high-pressure moments, how you say something matters just as much as what you say. Defensive, dismissive, or overly technical language can escalate tension. Calm, direct, and human communication helps stabilize it.
- After a Crisis (Reputation is rebuilt here)
The work does not end when the storm dies down. You must continue communicating, clearly and consistently, until confidence is restored.
Rebuilding trust requires transparency. Review what happened. Identify gaps, strengthen your systems and most importantly, reshape the narrative so the crisis does not become the only story people remember about your organization.
Because the truth is this:
A crisis is not the time to decide how your organization communicates.
It is the time your communication is tested and when that moment comes, your response will do more than address the issue.
An issue which sometimes arises in practice is how to treat a situation where an employee's contract is with one entity, but in substance they’re working for another entity.
Often, companies don't get around to updating the paperwork, they're just concerned with work getting done, or they fail to appreciate the significance of the distinct legal personality of corporate entities.
This can be a particular issue in corporate groups where an individual has a written contract with one entity, but they’re in fact deployed in the business of another entity - without a formal novation or secondment agreement.
This can lead to complications where the question of which entity in fact had an employment contract with the employee from time to time can matter -eg where issues of agency/authority arise, or where there's a dispute about whether its terms carried over to the second entity.
A recent Victorian Court of Appeal decision provides useful guidance, both for the specific area of employment contracts but also for contracts more generally.
In Addo v Care Legion Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 39, Ms Addo had a written employment contract with Guiding Care Pty Ltd. A different entity, Care Legion Pty Ltd acquired the business of Guiding Care. Ms Addo didn't enter into a new written contract with Care Legion. The central issue was whether Ms Addo had a contract with Care Legion.
Key points for practitioners:
1. There can be a novation absent a written agreement or express consent: [38].
2. A novation can be inferred from conduct: [38]-[39]. In drawing an inference, no narrow or pedantic approach is warranted: [39].
3. There may be an inferred novation where the substance of what has happened is that an employer changes the corporate vehicles used to carry out a business: [40]-[41].
4. Where there's a novation, ordinarily all the terms of the old employment contract become terms of the new contract: [43]. This may require some adjustment to the language (eg in this case, references to Guiding Care should be replaced with references to Care Legion): at [45].
In this case, this meant that it was properly inferred that there had been a novation of the employment contract from Guiding Care to Care Legion.
Addo is a useful case to have to hand whenever you have a possible novation, particularly in an employment context.
Coldplay, a Kiss Cam, and the Collapse of Two Careers: 𝘼 𝘾𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙨 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝘾𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙎𝙩𝙪𝙙𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙍𝙚𝙖𝙡-𝙏𝙞𝙢𝙚.
But not the kind you’ll find in a textbook.
This one wasn’t sparked by a product recall, data breach, or public scandal.
It was triggered by a few seconds on a stadium screen.
Two executives.
One moment.
Millions of eyeballs.
Zero preparation.
In the age of viral virality, every leader needs to understand:
You’re not just the CEO in the boardroom. You’re the CEO in the cheap seats too.
And when private choices spill into public view, you don’t get to split yourself in half.
You don’t get to hide behind “this is a personal matter.”
Because it never is - not when you're the face of a company, a culture, a brand.
Some key takeaways on how to manage a crisis:
1️⃣ 𝙍𝙚𝙥𝙪𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙚.
In 2025, your "off-duty" moments are still on the record. Cameras are everywhere, and pixels move faster than PR statements.
2️⃣ 𝙎𝙞𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙮.
The internet doesn’t wait for legal or HR to weigh in. Every second of hesitation is a megaphone for speculation. Even one clear, respectful sentence can buy you time, dignity, and control.
3️⃣ 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩 𝙄𝙎 𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙠.
This isn’t about moral judgement. It’s about risk management. Astronomer didn’t just lose a CEO and a Chief People Officer - they lost control of their own story.
4️⃣ 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙥𝙨 + 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝙧𝙤𝙡𝙚𝙨 = 𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙠 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚.
When your Chief People Officer and CEO go viral together for the wrong reasons, no values statement can fix the fallout.
And here's the reality:
* A crisis doesn’t need to be malicious to be disastrous.
* You don’t have to break laws to break trust.
* You don’t have to admit fault to lose face.
𝙈𝙮 𝙖𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙭𝙚𝙘𝙨 (𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙨) 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙮𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙢?
* Acknowledge the reality.
* Protect the dignity of everyone involved.
* And speak before the internet finishes the sentence for you.
Because in this game of crisis management, the longer you stay silent, the louder the memes become.
#CrisisCommunications#ReputationManagement#Leadership#PRWorx#ExecutiveBranding#TrustMatters#CrisisExpert#Astronomer#KissCamCrisis#coldplay
New Court of Appeal Ruling: You Can’t Resign to Escape Discipline
A recent Court of Appeal decision Peter Njuguna Chege v. Timsales Limited (21st Oct 2025) has changed the game in HR practice.
The court ruled that a resignation issued to avoid a lawful disciplinary process is INVALID.
Yes- resignation remains a unilateral act, but it must be done in good faith. You can’t quit mid-process to dodge accountability.
For employees: integrity still counts accountability can’t be bypassed.
For employers: you have the right to conclude disciplinary cases even after a resignation attempt.
A timely reminder that fairness, good faith, and due process must guide every HR decision.
#HumanResources#KenyaEmploymentLaw#LabourLaw#HRPractice#WorkplaceEthics#Accountability#Leadership#PeopleMatters
This Court of Appeal (CoA) case on workplace theft features a clear guideline for drafting criminal misconduct charges in internal inquiries.
The facts of this case may be all too familiar with HR/IR practitioners. Many of us get all excited when drafting disciplinary charges related to workplace theft, using the most severe language possible. An employee takes an item, and the immediate instinct is to charge them with "theft."
This CoA decision in Lee Ee Chai v Kansai Paint Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd reminds us of the legal pitfalls inherent in such overzealous drafting. When we import criminal nomenclature into an employment dispute, we import the requisite legal elements along with it.
In this case, the Appellant was dismissed following a domestic inquiry regarding items missing during an office relocation. The legal debate centered on the framing of the charge: "stealing or taking company property without permission".
The CoA held that the charge was vague and conflated two mutually exclusive acts. "Stealing" denotes dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive the employer of property. "Taking without permission" is a broader, potentially neutral act that may occur without any mens rea (dishonest intent).
By framing the charge in the alternative, the employer failed to specify whether the accused was facing a charge of moral turpitude or a lesser breach of workplace rules. This inherent ambiguity meant the charge could not form a fair basis for disciplinary action.
The CoA also found that the employer's operational directives regarding the office relocation ("as is where is") were highly ambiguous, with the company's own witnesses providing contradictory testimony. In the absence of clear rules of engagement, it becomes more difficult to prove that a breach was deliberate or dishonest.
The Industrial Court is mandated by S.30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 to act according to equity and substantial merits. It distinguishes between a dismissible offence of dishonest appropriation and a culpable but less severe act of mismanagement.
Thus, when drafting show-cause letters and charges, precision is paramount. Unless you possess unequivocal evidence of mens rea, resist the urge to charge an employee with "theft." Stick to the actus reus: unauthorised possession, removal of company property, or failure to adhere to SOPs.
***
An interesting discussion on the standard of proof:
The High Court had previously erred in concluding that the Industrial Court had unfairly imposed a criminal standard of proof. The CoA clarified a crucial jurisprudential distinction: the Industrial Court did not require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt"; rather, it correctly required the employer to prove the legal elements of "stealing" (including dishonest intent) on a *balance of probabilities*.
⚠️ WHY EMPLOYERS SHOULD REVISIT THEIR SUSPENSION PROCEDURES — BEFORE IT COSTS THEM 💥
Too many employers still treat precautionary suspension as a “safe” administrative step. The reality? A poorly managed suspension can quickly become a costly unfair labour practice claim.
Recent Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court decisions are sending a clear message:
🚨 Suspension is NOT punishment.
🚨 Suspension cannot drag on indefinitely. 🚨 Paid suspension does not shield employers from liability.
Employers often assume: 👉 “The employee is on full pay, so there’s no prejudice.” The courts disagree.
A prolonged or mishandled suspension can:
❌ Damage employee dignity and reputation
❌ Cause psychological and emotional harm
❌ Be viewed as punitive and procedurally unfair
❌ Lead to compensation awards and legal costs
❌ Undermine workplace trust and morale
Employers should urgently review whether their suspension procedures:
✅ Clearly define when suspension is justified
✅ Require objective risk assessments
✅ Contain strict timelines and review mechanisms
✅ Ensure investigations proceed without delay
✅ Prevent suspension from becoming punitive
✅ Align with current labour law developments and case law
One of the biggest mistakes employers make is allowing investigations to stagnate while employees remain suspended for months with no accountability or urgency.
⚖️ A precautionary suspension should be:
• Necessary
• Proportionate
• Time-sensitive
• Legally compliant
If your disciplinary and suspension procedures have not been updated recently, now is the time.
Strong procedures protect:
✔️ The integrity of investigations
✔️ Workplace fairness ✔️ Operational credibility
✔️ Employers against unnecessary litigation
Because in labour law… “Administrative convenience” is not a legal defence.
#LabourLaw#HRCompliance#Suspension#CCMA#EmployerRisk#LabourRelations#DisciplinaryProcess#HR#EmployerRisk#LabourLawWithBackbone
𝐋𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐏𝐈𝐋𝐆𝐑𝐈𝐌𝐒 𝐀𝐅𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐋𝐓𝐃 𝐯. 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐍𝐘 𝐁𝐎𝐘𝐒𝐎𝐍
This week on Labour Lens, we’re taking a deep dive into one case — Pilgrims Africa Ltd v. Anthony Boyson (2025) LPELR-80992(CA) and the many lessons it holds for both employers and employees.
It’s one of those cases that reminds us how a simple procedural misstep can turn a routine disciplinary process into a costly legal battle.
Every day this week, we’ll explore key principles the Court emphasized. They include fair hearing, wrongful dismissal, unfair labour practice, international best practice, and the award of damages.
We begin with Fair Hearing, because it is the foundation upon which every fair disciplinary process stands.
𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟭: 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀
Anthony was dismissed after years of service over allegations of misconduct. But he was never given a chance to defend himself. No query. No investigation. No disciplinary hearing.
The matter was first brought before the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) and later appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the decision of the NICN. The courts emphasized that fair hearing, as enshrined in the Constitution, is a fundamental right and a crucial part of any disciplinary process.
The court established that the law on fair hearing rests on two key points:
1. The employee must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against them and to face their accusers where necessary.
2. Those sitting on the disciplinary or investigative panel must not be the same people who made the allegations.
If these principles are ignored, it cannot be said that the employee was afforded fair hearing, and any dismissal that follows becomes wrongful.
The Court also noted that the opportunity to defend oneself may be given orally or in writing, as long as the employee is allowed to present their side.
𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑷𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕: Before issuing a dismissal, ensure the employee has a genuine opportunity to respond, separate the roles of investigators and accusers, and document all communications to show compliance with fair hearing principles.
Most organizations don’t struggle in a crisis because they lack smart people. They struggle because they lack command-and-control discipline when pressure spikes.
In policing, high-consequence events assume a few basics: clear command, shared situational awareness, common language, coordinated movement, disciplined communications, and accountability.
In many corporate environments, a critical incident gets handled like a meeting, too many “decision-makers,” unclear authority, fragmented communications, and parallel teams acting on different assumptions. That isn’t a culture issue. It’s a risk issue.
THE REALITY: The crisis “lead” is appropriately an executive owner (CEO/COO, business unit leader, designated incident executive) because the decisions are enterprise-level.
THE SECURITY ROLE: Security often owns the crisis-management process, playbooks, coordination, communications rhythm, deconfliction, and the structure that keeps the response coherent.
WHERE SECURITY SHINES:
- Build the system before it’s needed.
- Teach leaders how to use it.
- Keep it nimble when the tempo spikes.
- Serve as the trusted advisor who keeps the organization aligned, informed, and defensible.
THE BASELINE:
- Clear incident lead.
- Clear decision rights.
- Common operating picture.
- Tight deconfliction and communications.
- Capture lessons and improve the playbook.
THE GOAL: Speed and alignment that protects people and preserves the enterprise: stabilize operations fast, minimize downtime, reduce preventable mistakes, document decisions, manage liability, and ensure communications reinforce trust in the brand.
Where does your organization still default to “committee” when it needs “command”?
This article examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Caltex (U) Ltd v Ben Asiimwe & Another [2026], highlighting how it clarifies the proper procedure when employees are implicated in criminal conduct. It explains that employers cannot simply rely on police investigations or criminal proceedings to justify termination, nor can they delay action indefinitely; instead, they must conduct independent internal disciplinary processes and afford employees a fair hearing, even where the employee is in custody. The article also underscores the Court’s guidance on the lawful use of suspension, the limits of damages in wrongful dismissal claims, and the importance of procedural fairness, ultimately emphasising that while employers may act decisively in protecting their businesses, liability will turn not on suspicion of misconduct but on whether due process was properly followed.