How Communication Gaps Undermine an Effective Incident Response

When a cyber incident hits, the technical side usually gets all the attention — patching systems, isolating threats, and recovering data. But ask anyone who’s been involved in responding to an incident, and they’ll tell you much of the chaos comes from miscommunication. 

It’s more common than people think. Teams end up duplicating efforts, overlooking key steps, and sending mixed messages because communication lines aren’t clear. While an incident response plan (IRP) creates context and offers a clear roadmap to follow, it can’t replace the need for timely communication. 

If people are unsure about who to update, how to escalate, or what language to use with executives and customers, even the best plan can unravel. That’s why communication sits at the heart of effective response; it turns a documented process into coordinated action.

What Is an IRP?

An IRP is a playbook for what to do when a cyber incident happens. It lays out the steps, roles, and responsibilities. The aim is to keep damage low, get systems back up quickly, and protect sensitive data while complying with regulations. 

An IRP provides a framework for incident response. Absent effective communication, though, the structure breaks down, and confusion takes over. The real test is whether people share the right information at the right time.

Who’s Responsible for Incident Response?

Executive Leadership

Executives provide oversight and direction during an incident. They make business-critical decisions, such as authorizing system shutdowns, approving external notifications, and allocating emergency resources. They provide timely, accurate updates to the board and regulators. Without this top-level accountability, response efforts may drift without clear

priorities.

• CISO/Security Leadership

  The CISO or security leader owns the overall incident response strategy. They act as the bridge between technical teams and business leaders, translating technical details into clear business impact. Their responsibility is to coordinate efforts across departments so actions are consistent and aligned with organizational risk tolerance.

  
  

• Incident Response Team (IRT)

  The IRT consists of SOC analysts, IT staff, and forensic specialists who carry out the tactical work. They detect, contain, and eradicate threats while working to restore systems quickly. In other words, they’re the boots on the ground during a crisis, and their ability to stay aligned often determines how fast the organization can move from disruption to recovery. 

  
  

• Legal and Compliance

  Legal and compliance teams guide the organization through regulatory and contractual requirements during a crisis. They decide what can and cannot be disclosed, helping to reduce liability. A large part of their role is documenting actions and decisions for later reporting or legal defense. Their involvement prevents secondary risks that come from mishandling sensitive information.

  
  

• PR/Communications

  PR and communications teams shape the external narrative of the incident. They notify customers, partners, and the media, balancing transparency with protection of the brand. Timing and consistency are crucial, since unclear messaging can erode trust faster than the incident itself.

Why Communication Makes or Breaks Incident Response

When communication falters during a breach, the impact multiplies. Misalignment between teams slows down containment, technical jargon hinders executive decision-making, and unclear roles create gaps and duplicative efforts. Even worse, when outward communication is inconsistent, customers and stakeholders start to doubt whether they’re being told the full story.

We don’t have to look far to see how this plays out in practice. In the 2025 Business Council of New York State breach, communication lagged behind the technical response. Updates came too late, the messaging lacked clarity, and the public lost confidence in the organization. 

The result was more than reputational damage. Affected individuals felt abandoned, regulators turned up the pressure, and lawsuits soon followed. That's why effective communication isn’t just a supporting piece of incident response. It’s the thread that keeps the entire process from unraveling.

5 Steps to Improve Incident Response Communication

1. Define Roles: When everyone knows who owns communication at each level, teams move with confidence instead of hesitation. Clarity prevents the scramble that often costs precious minutes during a breach.

   
   

2. Establish Escalation Protocols: Not all information needs to reach the top, but critical updates must get there without delay. A structured escalation path avoids the bottlenecks that paralyze response.

   
   

3. Use Plain Language: Executives don’t need packet-level details. They need to know the risks to operations, customers, and revenue. Translating technical issues into business terms removes barriers and speeds up action.

   
   

4. Run Communication-Focused Drills: Most tabletop exercises stop at the technical fixes. But practicing how updates flow between teams, leaders, and external parties often reveals gaps you can’t see on paper. 

   
   

5. Create Pre-Approved Templates: Drafting regulator notices, customer updates, and partner communications on the fly slows everything down. Having regulator, customer, and partner messaging pre-approved allows you to communicate quickly, consistently, and with less second-guessing.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, technology and playbooks matter, but it’s communication that holds incident response together. When teams stumble over confusing updates or mixed messages, recovery slows and trust fractures. The organizations that thrive are the ones that treat communication as a core part of security, not an afterthought.

Not sure if your team can communicate effectively in the middle of a crisis? Visit our website to see how we can bring clarity to every stage of incident response.