Managing Crisis Communication during Election Periods

Reprinted with permission from the National Association of Corporate Directors after originally appearing as a Directorship online article on November 6, 2024.

By the end of 2024, over half the world's population across 60 countries would have voted on their national leadership—an unprecedented moment in global democracy. As the US election approaches, board members face a critical question: How can they prepare for, and respond to, potential political entanglements that may affect their organizations? The stakes are particularly high in today’s digitally connected world, where corporate responses—or lack thereof—can shape public perception and stakeholder trust.

Today’s polarized political climate presents corporate boards with complex communications challenges. While executing their fiduciary responsibilities and protecting shareholder interests remain paramount, boards should simultaneously consider broader stakeholder impacts and maintain corporate neutrality. Board members play a pivotal role in reinforcing organizational messages, preserving stakeholder trust, and providing strategic counsel to their companies during these sensitive periods.

Drawing from established crisis management principles and historical precedents, here are three actions for board members to consider:

1. Prepare to respond. Crisis communication demands proactive planning. Months prior to an election, the organization should have a plan in place to address potential political scenarios, with clear outlines of the key stakeholders, messaging approaches, and legal considerations across all communication channels. These plans should anticipate how each scenario could unfold internally and externally and anchor responses in the company’s mission and values, taking advantage of any business opportunities that may arise.

Crucially, boards should maintain clear boundaries between oversight and execution. While boards ensure robust crisis protocols exist, they should avoid becoming entangled in tactical messaging decisions as that is the domain of the executive leadership team. The focus should instead remain on maintaining clear, consistent, mission-aligned communication that prioritizes long-term corporate interests over short-term political considerations. Early preparation allows organizations to respond thoughtfully, rather than reactively, when challenges arise.

2. Focus on risk. Today’s heightened political tension and stakeholder scrutiny demand sophisticated risk management frameworks that can weather any crisis communication storms that may head a company’s way.

Think of a robust crisis communication framework as a corporate safety net. This begins with having a crisis communication plan in place that is regularly updated and stress-tested. The organization also needs clear escalation procedures, a designated crisis response team, and preapproved messaging frameworks that can be swiftly deployed when needed.

However, preparedness isn’t enough; active monitoring is also critical to maintain control of the narrative and understand its impact. How effectively are messages landing with key stakeholders? Boards should maintain vigilant oversight of reputational impacts and stay attuned to how competitors are positioning themselves in the political landscape.

Having effective response protocols in place is also critical. Every person should know their role, every approval process should be clear, and decision-making procedures should be thoroughly documented. Regular and timely board briefings are also key to ensure that significant developments are communicated effectively.

History has shown that companies that wade into political waters without an adequate focus on risk management often face severe stakeholder backlash. During politically charged periods, boards should fulfill their fundamental duty to protect corporate reputation by carefully weighing when to communicate openly versus when such transparency might create unnecessary political risks.

All of this should be achieved while staying within the bounds of regulatory requirements, from US Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure obligations to industry-specific regulations and corporate governance standards. These requirements form the nonnegotiable parameters that must be respected, regardless of the political climate.

3. Navigate conversations. Board members should approach election periods with thorough preparation and careful consideration of how various policy outcomes could affect their organizations. This preparation involves understanding potential business impacts across different scenarios while maintaining professional objectivity.

When engaging in conversations about election-related topics, board members should demonstrate understanding and empathy, while remembering their role as company representatives. The focus should remain on factual, business-relevant discussions rather than personal political views, with any concerning interactions or escalating situations promptly reported to the appropriate leadership channels.

Media interactions during election periods also demand vigilance, as conversations can quickly veer into political territory. Board members should prepare for such pivots by anchoring responses in business fundamentals and organizational impacts rather than political positions. When discussing potential policy changes or outcomes, responses should remain theoretical and analytical, avoiding definitive statements or judgments that could be perceived as partisan. This measured approach helps maintain organizational credibility while protecting both the company's reputation and stakeholder relationships during sensitive political periods.

Looking Forward: Post-Election

Conducting a post-election impact assessment is crucial to long-term organizational resilience. Organizations should evaluate communication effectiveness, analyze stakeholder feedback, and update crisis management procedures accordingly. This review process should consider both immediate communication outcomes and long-term implications for stakeholder relationships and corporate culture.

The success of election-period crisis communication ultimately hinges on careful preparation, clear governance structures, and an unwavering focus on the corporate mission and stakeholder interests. Boards that maintain this disciplined approach, while ensuring robust oversight of communication strategies, will be best positioned to guide their organizations through election-related challenges.

Russell Reynolds Associates is a NACD strategic content partner, providing directors with critical and timely information, and perspectives. Russell Reynolds Associates is a financial supporter of the NACD.

Authors

Theodore L. Dysart is a Managing Director with Russell Reynolds, focused on placing board members and CEOs.
Amy Scissons is the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer at Russell Reynolds Associates.