The Strategic Crisis in PR & Comms No One’s Naming
It’s getting to hair-on-fire urgency level because of GenAI
All of the most senior PR & Comms leaders I talk to say something like “we need to be more strategic” or “prove our value to the C-suite”…
But what’s unspoken is: We’re using GenAI to accelerate decisions we haven’t fully examined.
And since GenAI doesn’t replace human judgement, it’s actually amplifying flawed judgement at speed.
Why do we keep saying we want “insights”, when we can’t define what insight actually is, beyond a data point that confirms what leadership already believes?
Why do we think “being strategic” means having a seat at the table, when we haven’t questioned whether our counsel is rooted in truth & clarity… or just inherited assumptions about how comms should work?
Why are we defending our function’s value with the same thinking patterns that got us labeled an overhead expense in the first place?
We routinely mistake “gut feel” for wisdom, but what if your gut is repeating a misconception?
We call things “strategic” when it’s really just “familiar, but at scale”
Metrics we report, stakeholders we prioritize, even crisis prep — how much of it is evidence-based vs. considered status-quo bias? How much of it is assumed? A misconception? Rooted in unconscious bias?
Get Piar’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
When we know the question of “did this campaign work?” is coming, should we stop and think about clearly defining what “work” means in the first place? Just because goals are S.M.A.R.T doesn’t mean they’re smart. What if the assumptions they’re built on are wrong?
I don’t know if the C-Suite needs you to report on metrics, as much as they need you to think differently from them. To surface risks, blind-spots, gaps in plans they don’t see.
If your counsel sounds like every other Comms leader’s counsel, you’re replaceable. If you can’t provide strategic advice that rivals colleagues across the table (in a healthy way) like Marketing, Advertising, Sales, Customer Success, Product etc. then your seat at the table has an opportunity cost to it.
If GenAI can generate the same quality of work, aren’t you already overhead? Maybe without knowing it?
With the knowledge economy changing, and with GenAI being used by your peers & competitors — What if true strategic value doesn’t mean knowing more stuff? Instead, it’s thinking about your own thinking.
What if before you prompt GenAI, you audit your own thinking. The premise. What am I assuming here? What am I not asking? What would I need to believe for this approach to maybe be wrong?
It’s hard to believe the most senior, and decorated leaders in PR & Comms, who win big in 2026 will find that it boils down to tools. It’s more plausible, that it’s the one who questions whether their entire mental model of: reputation, influence, risk, measurement, impact on business, etc. is built on groupthink, assumptions, or outdated “truths”.
What if “being strategic” is actually the ability to question your own certainty? And lean in with new found clarity, to connect the dots?
What if the real insights aren’t inside the data that’s available. But rather in recognizing the bias, and unknowns in how you’re looking AT the data?
What if the secret to your job isn’t having all the answers, but to surface the assumptions everyone else is operating on without realizing it?
Wouldn’t that clarity & self-awareness be what makes you irreplaceable counsel?
The C-suite doesn’t need another deck. They need someone who thinks about thinking. And GenAI just made that skill 10x more valuable because everyone else is using it to go faster in the wrong direction. You’re going full speed in a direction your compass is pointing — but what if the compass was never calibrated correctly?
You’re not competing with GenAI. You’re competing against every other Comms leader, who uses GenAI, and most of whom are not actively surfacing risks, blind-spots, gaps in plans they don’t see.
You can start immediately. You can start asking GenAI for the assumptions, biases, and misconceptions around the work you’re doing and specific case-by-case examples.
Behavioral science has existed for decades, so this isn’t considered new thinking. What’s new is that GenAI just made it hair-on-fire urgent.
I’ve been obsessed with this topic for the past two years. If you’re thinking about it too, I’d love to hear how you’re approaching it.
