I often say that good crisis management is good decision-making under stress.

I never assign blame in a crisis. There is no benefit to doing so.

Companies that do not actively practice, study, and plan for crisis communications - as well, of course, crisis management - are doomed to fail when a crisis befalls them. Crises are, in a word, inevitable, and those macho companies that think, it can't happen here, or if it does, I can handle it, will suffer the hardest failures.

Too often, business schools teach academic crisis management theory, if that, but given the diverse and unique nature of crises, all the theory in the world will not help you manage an actual crisis unless you know the basic mechanics.

Social media has dramatically changed the playing field in terms of crisis communications - and any company that does not effectively use social media to take the pulse of its constituents on a constant basis, and know how to communicate with them in a crisis, is breaching its fiduciary responsibilities to its stakeholders.

Too often, clients want us to give them a one-size-fits-all crisis management plan from off the shelf. Some of our competitors do this because it's fast and cheap. They build a plan once and keep using the same plan over and over with other clients.

A moderate amount of stress - not too much, not too little - generally means you understand the problem and are psychologically stoked to solve it. Moderate stress yields the best, most optimum performance in a crisis.

In my experience, the public will forgive mistakes, provided they are acknowledged promptly and a remedial course of action is articulated. Lawyers often get in the way of this, which is a subject I cover in my book: how to deal with obstructionist lawyers in a crisis.