From Crisis Communications to AI: Finding Clarity in the Chaos

In emergency management, we don’t wait for the crisis to arrive before we prepare for it.

We anticipate.
We plan.
We communicate clearly. Even when the situation is still unfolding.

I learned this over 14 years in emergency management, including a decade with the American Red Cross, where clarity and communication can shape outcomes in real time.

That same mindset is now required for AI.

Because while AI is often framed as a technological shift, what we are actually experiencing is something far more familiar to those of us in crisis communications: a slow-moving, compounding event (like a hurricane) that is already reshaping how people work, how organizations operate, and how decisions are made.

It’s not a single moment of disruption.

It’s a series of small, accelerating changes, often happening faster than people can process them.

And right now, many organizations are responding the way they do in the early stages of a crisis: reacting instead of preparing.

Over the past month, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with a range of audiences — from the American Red Cross Alumni Network to the National Hispanic Corporate Council, from my university's alumni groups to podcast listeners — all asking variations of the same question:

Where do I fit in this?

That question is not just about technology.

It’s about uncertainty.

It’s about identity.

It’s about whether people are being equipped to navigate what’s coming, or left to figure it out on their own.

This is where the lessons from crisis communications and emergency management become critical.

Anticipation

In a crisis, we don’t ask if something will happen. We ask where the impact will be felt first and how it will spread.

AI requires the same discipline. Not “Will this affect us?” but “Which roles, which tasks, and which people are most exposed? What are we doing about it now?”

Preparedness

Emergency response depends on preparation long before an event occurs. Plans, training, and coordination are built in advance.

Yet many organizations are approaching AI without a clear workforce strategy, without reskilling pathways, and without a communication plan. That is not preparedness. That is exposure.

Clarity in the chaos

In moments of crisis, information is often incomplete, and conditions are constantly changing. The role of communication is not to have every answer. It is to provide clarity, consistency, and direction.

Right now, employees are navigating a flood of headlines, predictions, and internal changes. What they need is not more noise. They need leaders who can translate complexity into something understandable and actionable.

Helping others navigate

At its core, emergency management is about people. It is about guiding individuals and communities through uncertainty with empathy and structure.

The same must be true for AI. This is not just about efficiency or automation. It is about how we support people through a fundamental shift in how work is defined and valued.

What concerns me most is not the pace of AI development. It is the gap between what is happening and how clearly it is being communicated.

Too often, AI is positioned as a productivity tool or a cost-saving measure. What gets lost is the human impact; the questions people are quietly asking about their future, their relevance, and their ability to adapt.

This is where organizations have a choice.

They can treat AI as a technology implementation.

Or they can approach it as what it is: a workforce transformation that requires leadership, communication, and intentionality.

Looking back on my work in crisis environments and situations, one lesson stands out above all others.

People don’t just need answers. They need direction, and AI is no different.

The organizations that navigate this well will not be the ones that move the fastest.

They will be the ones who communicate the clearest, prepare the earliest, and support their people the most.

Because in moments of disruption, clarity is not a luxury.

It is a responsibility.