Why the Incident Commander’s approval matters before sharing customer updates during an incident

Think of a crisis as a storm at sea. The incident is the wave, the engineers are the crew, and the message you send to customers is the lighthouse beam guiding everyone to safety. In that setup, the Communications Liaison has one non-negotiable checkpoint before any update goes public: get approval from the Incident Commander. It sounds simple, but it’s the glue that keeps the whole response coherent and credible.

Who does what in a PagerDuty-like incident?

Let’s map out the roles in plain terms. The Incident Commander (IC) is the person at the helm. They’re not the only technical person in the room, but they have the big-picture view: what’s failing, how bad it is, what needs to be done next, and what the messaging should reflect. The Communications Liaison is the storyteller on duty. They translate the reality on the ground into clear, careful updates for customers, partners, and internal stakeholders. Then you’ve got the Incident Response team—engineers, SREs, and on-call engineers who actually fix the problem. And the postmortem owner? That’s the person who’ll own the retrospective after the smoke clears, documenting root causes and learnings. Each role matters, but when it comes to public updates, the IC’s stamp of approval is the keystone.

Why is that approval so crucial? Because updates to customers aren’t just “information.” They’re commitments. They shape trust, reduce churn during outages, and set expectations about timelines, impact, and next steps. If you release a message that’s premature, vague, or inaccurate, you risk triggering confusion, panic, or misinterpretation. The IC has the most complete picture of severity, containment, and the current strategy for resolving the incident. They’ve already weighed trade-offs about what to disclose, how much detail to share, and what the public needs to know now. When the IC signs off, you’re aligning with the response strategy—and that keeps the team’s actions and the message in sync.

It’s not that the other inputs don’t matter. Feedback from stakeholders, details from the Incident Response team, and even the postmortem owner’s future-looking lens all add texture. They help you craft updates that are accurate, respectful, and useful. But they don’t replace the authority of the IC’s approval. Think of stakeholder feedback as seasoning; it makes the dish better, but the IC decides the main course. The response plan is the backbone, and the IC’s go-ahead is the spine that keeps everything upright.

How the process typically flows (in plain, practical terms)

• The incident starts. The IC assesses severity and sets the messaging approach. They decide who needs to know, roughly what to say, and what the early updates should cover.

• The Communications Liaison drafts a status update. The draft captures impact, current actions, and next steps in language that’s clear, honest, and not overly technical. It respects privacy, security, and regulatory constraints, and it avoids promising timelines that can’t be kept.

• The IC reviews the draft. They check for accuracy, tone, and consistency with the incident plan. They may adjust the level of detail, the language around impact, or the cadence of updates.

• The update goes out. It’s published through the right channels—Statuspage, Slack channels, email if appropriate, and any external-facing dashboards. The idea is to reach affected users without overwhelming them with jargon.

• The cycle continues. As the incident evolves, updates are refined, re-approved, and shared. The Communications Liaison maintains the bridge between what’s happening on the ground and what customers need to know, always grounded in the IC’s guidance.

• After things settle, the postmortem will document what happened and what we learned. The IC still holds the overall view, but the Communications Liaison’s role in clear, timely updates doesn’t end with containment—it becomes part of the learning loop.

Best practices for crafting updates that fit the moment

• Be precise, not coy. Lead with impact, followed by what you know and what you don’t. People want honesty more than vague reassurances.

• Keep it human. Acknowledge disruption. Show empathy for users who rely on your services.

• Use plain language. Cut the jargon, unless you’re sure your audience understands it. If you must use a technical term, explain it in simple terms.

• Stick to the facts the IC has authorized. If you’re unsure, say so (and indicate you’re awaiting confirmation). It’s better to be accurate and patient than confident and wrong.

• Maintain a consistent cadence. If you say you’ll update every 15 minutes or hourly, keep that promise unless there’s a compelling reason to adjust.

• Don’t overshare. Don’t reveal sensitive data, internal incidents, or speculative timelines. Public messaging should be clear, concise, and safe.

• Use templates but tailor as needed. A well-crafted starter message can speed up response times, but always run it by the IC first.

A quick reality check: what if you don’t get the IC’s nod?

Imagine sending an update that later turns out to be off-base. The consequences aren’t just cosmetic—trust can erode quickly. Customers feel unsettled when the numbers don’t line up with the reality on the ground. Stakeholders lose confidence in the organization’s ability to manage incidents. And when the IC isn’t involved in the messaging loop, you risk creating a gap between what the team is doing and what the public hears. That gap can widen faster than the outage itself.

On the flip side, the process isn’t a choke point. It’s a guardrail that keeps the message truthful and aligned with the actual response plan. It’s a short, controlled chain: IC approves, Communications Liaison publishes, and the team follows a predictable pattern. This predictability is what reduces confusion, not just for customers but for internal teams who depend on clear external signals to coordinate their work.

A few practical tips you can tuck into your playbook

• Build a messaging template. A standard structure—impact, scope, actions taken, next steps, expected timeline—helps you capture essential details quickly. The IC can tweak the content, but you’ll save precious minutes.

• Create a rapid escalation path. If the IC isn’t available, who has the authority to approve interim updates? Define this in your incident playbook so you don’t stall the flow.

• Keep a single source of truth. Status updates should reflect a consistent reality across channels. If the IC approves one version for Statuspage, that same version should guide any social posts or internal notes.

• Practice, don’t memorize. Run tabletop exercises that simulate outages and the messaging flow. The goal isn’t to be perfect but to be practiced—so when pressure is real, the process feels natural.

• Respect regulatory and security constraints. Some details must stay internal. The IC helps navigate what can and cannot be disclosed publicly.

A moment to connect with the human side

Yes, this is about systems and playbooks, but it’s also about trust. Customers aren’t just numbers; they’re people who depend on your service during tough moments. When you frame updates with clarity, accountability, and a touch of empathy, you’re doing more than mitigating risk—you're preserving relationships. And let’s be honest: in the middle of a crisis, a well-timed, well-worded update can calm a lot of nerves. It says, “We’re on it, we’re honest about what we know, and we’ll tell you what comes next.” That kind of tone matters.

Digressions happen for a reason, right? You might wonder about the tech side—the actual mechanics of sending updates. Tools like PagerDuty help coordinate incident responses, while Statuspage serves as a public-facing pulse. Slack or Teams channels keep internal teams in sync. Jira or another ticketing system tracks tasks and timelines. The magic happens when all these tools listen to the same conductor: the Incident Commander’s strategy, translated by the Communications Liaison into public language. The turnout is smoother, the response more coherent, and the stakeholders feel seen rather than left in the dark.

Wrapping it up: the core takeaway in one line

Before you press “send” on any customer-facing update, secure the IC’s approval. It’s not a formality; it’s the keystone that holds together accuracy, strategy, and trust during a crisis.

If you take nothing else away from this, remember this: the IC’s sign-off isn’t about slowdowns. It’s about confidence. It’s about making sure the message you put out isn’t just fast; it’s right. And in the middle of a high-stakes incident, right matters more than fast.

So next time you’re the Communications Liaison, you’ll know exactly what to do. Draft with care, seek the IC’s green light, publish with purpose, and watch how a well-coordinated message turns a tense moment into a controlled, transparent response. The lighthouse doesn’t shine on its own—everybody in the crew plays a part, and the IC’s approval is the captain’s final word before the light goes out to the world.