As the 2026 school year comes to a close, several commencement speeches from business and technology leaders have sparked backlash after graduates openly booed remarks about artificial intelligence.
At the University of Central Florida, Tavistock Development Company executive Gloria Caulfield called AI “the next Industrial Revolution,” prompting boos from graduates. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt faced a similar reaction at the University of Arizona as he discussed AI’s impact on the future workforce.
The reaction reflects growing frustration among recent graduates entering a job market increasingly shaped by AI. Many students viewed the remarks as tone-deaf, highlighting a disconnect between how executives talk about innovation and how younger generations are experiencing its real-world impact on career stability and their ability to break into the workforce.
While these moments did not involve a technical failure, they reflect a growing reputational challenge for technology and business leaders. For communications teams, they are a reminder that modern crises often center on public perception, trust and whether organizations are viewed as being in touch with the audiences most affected by change.
As tech companies increasingly become part of the systems that shape everyday life, they now face similar expectations.
Today, tech crises extend far beyond data breaches and outages. Leadership changes, regulatory scrutiny, AI misuse, environmental concerns and public backlash can all escalate into reputation-defining moments. As tech companies take on more infrastructure-level responsibility, communication strategies and tactics must evolve alongside them.
While the definition of crisis has expanded, the fundamentals of effective crisis communication have not. Organizations still need clear leadership, coordinated messaging and a trusted communications team prepared to respond effectively.
In a Crisis, Response Reflects Reputation
A crisis is any situation that threatens a company’s reputation and, most importantly, its internal and external stakeholders. In today’s environment, crisis response cannot operate in silos. Public relations teams must work cross-functionally with legal, human resources, operations, senior leadership, and health and safety teams to align messaging with facts, compliance requirements and business realities.
As my colleague shared in “The Crisis Comms Move No One Talks About: Strategic Silence,” crisis strategy is not always about responding immediately. In some situations, especially early on, restraint and information gathering can be just as important as speed.
The goal is not just to respond, but, if the situation calls for it, to respond in a way that is clear, coordinated and grounded in transparency.
The strongest crisis responses are proactive and strategic, relying on plans developed well in advance of the problem. These often include multiple scenarios, stakeholder perspectives and communication channels that allow teams to adapt messaging as media coverage and public sentiment evolve.
One of the most well-known examples of this kind of coordination is the 1982 Tylenol crisis, when Johnson & Johnson recalled 31 million bottles of Tylenol after several were deliberately tampered with, resulting in multiple deaths. CEO James Burke quickly formed a strategy team focused on two priorities: protecting the public and preserving trust in the brand. The company used national media to warn consumers not to use Tylenol while launching a nationwide recall and maintaining consistent communication through press conferences, media outreach, paid advertising and real-time hotline updates for consumers and journalists.
The response marked a shift toward more proactive media engagement and remains a strong example of effective crisis communications.
Today, organizations face a rapidly changing environment where narratives evolve in real time and public expectations for transparency are significantly higher. In high-stakes situations, stakeholders do not expect perfection. They expect accountability, clear and consistent information, and an understanding of the situation’s impact.
The Core Elements of Effective Crisis Communication
Effective crisis communication starts long before a crisis happens and depends on several foundational elements that are often overlooked.
- Define clear roles and responsibilities – It must be immediately clear who is making decisions, approving messaging, sharing updates and supporting execution. In fast-moving situations, confusion around ownership slows response times, creates inconsistent communication and increases internal friction at the exact moment alignment matters most.
- Develop a formal incident assessment process – This helps outline which teams are involved, how information is escalated and how decisions move forward. In high-pressure situations, teams cannot afford to determine approvals or workflows in real time. A structured process allows organizations to quickly assess severity, align stakeholders early and respond more efficiently.
- Identify key stakeholder groups – Understanding the organizational structure and the different groups that could be impacted is crucial to providing the right information to the right people quickly. Employees, customers, regulators, investors and the public all require different levels of detail and often receive information through different channels.
- Train designated spokespeople in advance – Organizations should identify and train designated spokespeople as part of crisis communications preparation. In high-stakes moments, that individual becomes the public face and voice of the organization, directly shaping trust, credibility and perception. [BP’s response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill is a strong example of how critical spokesperson training can be. Former CEO Tony Hayward faced heavy criticism for comments that appeared to minimize both the scale of the spill and its human impact. Statements describing the spill as “tiny in relation to the total water volume” and the environmental damage as “very modest,” along with his comment, “I’d like my life back,” following the deaths of 11 workers, were widely viewed as tone-deaf and dismissive.]
- Develop messaging frameworks for different crisis scenarios – Good preparation means evaluating what a potential crisis could look like and building initial messaging in advance. Organizations can develop and approve message templates ahead of time so teams can quickly tailor communications once facts become available, helping maintain consistency and accuracy under pressure.
Crisis Readiness Is Now a Business Requirement
Communications leaders need to think critically about how prepared their organizations are before a crisis occurs. That starts with understanding how early communications teams are brought into decision-making, whether clear messaging frameworks already exist and whether teams are aligned before a crisis unfolds. If not, those functions need to be developed and formal playbooks should be created.
As tech companies become more embedded in everyday life, they face growing public expectations and accountability. Companies can no longer afford to treat crisis communications as an afterthought.