Mike Kuczkowski is Founder and CEO of Orangefiery, a strategy consulting & communications firm that helps transform complexity into clarity.
Easter at my grandparents’ house on Long Island was a real treat. They hid dyed eggs of various pastels in trees and filled wicker baskets with jellybeans and Pez dispensers. The highlight was the foil-wrapped chocolate bunnies that would sit balanced atop the fake plastic grass that lined the baskets.
The real test of the bunnies was in the bite. If you were lucky, your front teeth hit paydirt: a chunk of solid chocolate. If you were less fortunate, the chocolate collapsed upon biting, revealing a hollow chocolate bunny.
I was reminded of this recently by an exchange on the “That’s How I Remember It” podcast by The Hold Steady frontman, Craig Finn. He quoted screenwriter Edward Kitsis describing the hollow chocolate bunny problem: “When the details aren’t right, it’s like the hollow bunny. And when they’re right, it’s the full chocolate bunny.” Finn added, “That made a lot of sense to me. I think about that all the time.”
I do, too, when I think about crisis and issues management.
The Challenge Of How Much To Disclose
In crisis management, there is always a tension between the transparency imperative and legal risk. Leaders have to decide how much to disclose, how much detail to offer, and, depending on the event, whether or not to acknowledge responsibility. Typically, these decisions have to be made quickly and early in the process to have the desired effect. I’ve been a counselor to clients on dozens of high-profile crises over the years, and this process is never easy.
Studies from a communications perspective have shown that disclosing a crisis, acknowledging responsibility where applicable and apologizing (subscription required) can reduce the risk of lawsuits and help maintain or rebuild trust. Yet, there is always a tension between the communications team’s bias toward disclosure and the desire of legal counsel to protect clients from legal risks.
We saw this play out with a client earlier last year. It involved a cybersecurity breach—an increasingly significant threat to organizations. (According to IBM, the average global cost of a breach in 2024 is about $4.9 million—the highest ever.) From an operational perspective, our client was a model of effective crisis response. They detected the event quickly, responded within minutes and were immediately in touch with law enforcement agencies to disclose what had happened and work on a long-term response.
We were brought in the following day to develop a tailored communications plan. There was a relatively clear set of facts. We drafted materials acknowledging what was known and unknown, outlined the actions our client’s leadership team was taking to restore access to its IT infrastructure and described future steps to mitigate risks. We’ve used this approach for years in the face of emergent issues to maintain legal protection, demonstrate empathy and build trust—all critical goals for crisis communications.
In this particular case, their legal team provided a communications plan of its own, which took a contrasting approach. Their materials offered few details, with nothing about how the cybersecurity incident came to light or the immediate steps the company had taken. It didn’t acknowledge the impact on employees. It didn’t describe any steps forward.
The legal team’s perspective wasn’t wrong, exactly. They were doing their job. The crisis was in its early stages, and facts were in flux. Their desire to limit details made sense from the standpoint of protecting the company from liability. But the many questions it left unanswered were, in effect, a hollow chocolate bunny.
The Sensemaking Imperative
Here’s the core of the problem: When companies provide statements lacking in meaningful detail, stakeholders want more. They may fill the information vacuum with speculation or develop their own theories. This is where the concept of “sensemaking”—what humans do when confronted with new or unexpected events—becomes relevant.
When sensemaking, we collect information, put it in the context of our experience and develop plausible explanations that fit the facts. Karl Weick, who pioneered the concept, describes it as a mapping exercise—people create mental models of events and then test those models against new information. If the information fits, then the model holds. If it doesn’t, people revisit their mental models.
When we deny stakeholders the details they need for sensemaking, we’re handing them a hollow chocolate bunny. It may look right on the outside but provides no satisfaction when you bite into it.
Finding The Right Balance
So, how do we resolve this tension? Here are some key principles:
1. Acknowledge what you know and don’t know. I’ve found that transparency about uncertainty can actually build your credibility.
2. Focus on process over specifics. Even when you can’t share all the details, you can describe your approach to investigating and addressing the issue.
3. Provide context without compromising security. Share information about the broader landscape (like industry trends and statistics) that helps stakeholders understand the situation.
4. Update regularly. Even if you don’t have major developments to share, regular updates can help you maintain engagement and demonstrate ongoing attention to the issue.
5. Consider your audiences. Different stakeholders have different information needs. For example, employees typically need more detail than the general public.
The Solid Chocolate Solution
Organizations really only get one opportunity to tell their story in a crisis. When they provide too little information initially, they may miss a crucial opportunity to shape the narrative. A narrative will naturally be created by people touched by a crisis, so remaining silent only lets that process take place without key information and can erode organizational trust. Instead, find ways to provide substantive information that helps stakeholders make sense of the situation without creating unnecessary risk.
After all, nobody remembers the hollow chocolate bunnies fondly. But a solid one? That’s something worth sinking your teeth into.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Read the full article here
