The problem is not a lack of tools
Most organisations do not struggle with crisis communications because they lack tools.
They struggle because, when pressure hits, people default to what feels quickest, safest and most familiar.
In practice, that often means informal channels. Side calls. Personal mobiles. Ad-hoc messaging groups. And very often, WhatsApp.
That is not a failure of policy. It is a human response to urgency.
So when platforms introduce tighter controls, stronger security settings or improved admin features, it feels like progress. Something tangible. Something that suggests risk is being reduced.
WhatsApp’s recent move towards stricter account settings is a good example. On the surface, it addresses genuine concerns around privacy and misuse. For everyday business communication, these changes are sensible and welcome.
But during a live incident, they do not change the fundamentals.
People will still:
create parallel conversations
make decisions in private threads
escalate late, or not at all
rely on individual judgement rather than shared structure
The tool becomes a container for behaviour, not a control over it.
This is where many organisations quietly get stuck.
Time and effort are spent refining the platform, while harder questions remain unasked:
After the incident, reviews tend to focus on outcomes. Systems were restored. Clients were informed. Regulators were notified. On paper, it worked.
What is rarely examined is how decisions were made, which assumptions went unchallenged, and what was never said because the structure did not allow for it..
That is why improving tools often feels reassuring, but delivers diminishing returns.
The real issue is not the channel.
It is how communication behaves under pressure.
And that is where the real work starts.