Spokesperson training remains a valuable tool. It helps prepare for interviews, structure messages, respond with greater confidence and perform better under pressure. In many organisations, it has helped to professionalise a role that, for years, was handled on an ad hoc basis. The problem, however, is that spokespersons are often expected to resolve issues that are not within their remit.
When a company invests in training its spokespersons and yet contradictions continue to arise between what one executive says, what another maintains, and what the organisation is trying to convey, the conclusion is often drawn incorrectly. People tend to think that what is needed is more training, more discipline or tighter control over the message. However, it is not always a question of communication skills. Often, the problem lies elsewhere.
Media training can teach you how to respond effectively, but it cannot determine the position from which you should respond. It can improve your delivery, but it cannot replace the underlying framework. If that framework is absent, or is vague, the spokesperson ends up relying on their personal judgement, professional experience or intuition. They speak confidently, but not necessarily from the position the organisation needs to take.
This is where the structural limitations of training come into play. It only really works when there is a clear objective to train for. When a starting position already exists, training refines it, strengthens it and, ultimately, ensures it can be applied under pressure. When no such position exists, all it does is perfect a technique that lacks a common point of reference.
A well-trained spokesperson is not the same as a strategically aligned spokesperson. The former knows how to present themselves, whilst the latter knows how to embody a position.
To represent is not the same as to hold a position
In many organisations, the role of spokesperson is still seen as one of representation. Specific individuals are tasked with conveying public messages, giving interviews, taking part in meetings or responding to relevant questions. In this model, the spokesperson is someone who acts as the organisation’s voice to the outside world.
This approach falls short when the environment becomes more demanding and less predictable. Today, a spokesperson must respond in real time, adapt their message to the context, navigate subtle nuances, handle unexpected questions and maintain consistency, even when the format, the audience or the tone of the conversation changes. To do this, one must embody the role.
To represent means to convey messages that others have defined. To embody means to have internalised the conceptual framework within which those messages make sense. A spokesperson who represents can perform well as long as they stick to a set script. A spokesperson who embodies can improvise without straying from the message, because they understand the rationale behind the phrases they have learnt.
This approach involves several layers: knowing what the organisation says, but also why it says it that way and not another. It involves understanding which ideas should not be reinforced, which areas of discourse it is not in the organisation’s interest to enter, and which boundaries must not be crossed, even if the question seems to invite doing so. In short, it involves a deeper understanding of the position the organisation wishes to establish in the public sphere.
When that sense of ownership is in place, the spokesperson can adapt their approach, set priorities and make decisions without compromising their consistency, because they know where they stand. That is what makes spokespersonship a strategic asset, rather than merely an individual skill.
It is worth emphasising that this ability does not stem from media training. Training can reinforce it, challenge it and put it to the test, but its origins lie elsewhere, in strategic alignment.
When the spokesperson undermines rather than reinforces
Poorly managed public relations is not always perceived as an obvious problem. In fact, it often takes on a seemingly competent appearance. It doesn’t sound clumsy. It doesn’t trigger immediate crises. It doesn’t make for sensational headlines. That is precisely why it can be more damaging: it gradually erodes a company’s reputation without setting off any clear alarm bells.
There are at least three recognisable situations in which this occurs:
1. The spokesperson who is good at improvising, but in the wrong direction
He is composed, confident, articulate and a good conversationalist. He responds with ease, comes across as likeable and exudes competence. From a purely communicative perspective, he seems like a good spokesperson.
However, when one examines the impression left after several interventions, a discrepancy becomes apparent. His statements do not align with the strategic framework. He introduces emphases that were not previously defined, shifts the focus to secondary attributes, or interprets the positioning through the lens of his own professional logic.
It may be the case, for example, that a company wishes to build a reputation based on sound judgement, reliability and a long-term vision, yet its spokesperson, whilst making no formal errors, conveys a narrative focused on agility, opportunity or responsiveness. None of this is necessarily negative. The problem is that it ends up creating a different perception of the organisation.
2. Multiple Spokespeople with different Perspectives
This scenario is common in medium-sized and large organisations. The CEO talks about innovation. The sales director focuses on price and service. The communications director emphasises legitimacy and reputation. The technical expert delves into methodological details. None of this is inherently inconsistent. They are all reasonable. However, when there is no common framework, each spokesperson occupies the public space based on their own priorities.
What is perceived from the outside is not a wealth of nuances, but a lack of consistency. The company appears different depending on who is describing it. And if an organisation can only be understood through the lens of the spokesperson representing it, then it has failed to establish a shared position: it has delegated its public identity to the sum of individual voices.
This is remedied by establishing a framework for dialogue in which different voices can express distinct nuances whilst remaining part of the same framework. Well-managed diversity is a source of strength.
3. The spokesperson who avoids taking a stand
There is also a type of spokesperson who is often regarded as reliable because they almost never make a mistake. They respond cautiously, avoid making compromising statements, sidestep awkward questions and emerge unscathed from complex interviews. Technically, they do the job. Strategically, however, they can be useless, particularly when their training has focused primarily on not making mistakes. The result is a polished presence, but one devoid of any real stance.
In the short term, this caution often seems sensible. In the medium term, however, it conveys something more problematic: that the organisation lacks its own stance or is unwilling to defend it publicly. This apparent neutrality is not neutral at all. It also shapes perception, as the absence of a position is, in itself, a position: it suggests that the organisation prefers not to occupy any recognisable ground and that it avoids committing to its own interpretation of its context. It treats its exposure as a risk to be minimised, rather than as a strategic function that should provide direction.
A spokesperson like that avoids mistakes, but also fails to build authority. And an organisation that aspires to exert influence—not merely to have a presence—cannot be content with that.
Advocacy is not an individual skill
One of the most persistent misconceptions in this area is to treat public speaking as if it were, above all, a personal skill. Someone with a good presence, a gift for words or the ability to present ideas is identified, trained, and the problem is deemed solved. The underlying assumption is clear: if the right person learns to communicate better, the organisation will be better represented.
But strategic communication does not depend primarily on the individual, but on the system that enables them to speak with consistency. If that framework does not exist, or if it is not governed internally, any individual talent operates in a vacuum.
It is not enough to ask who speaks well, who handles pressure best or who comes across as most credible. It is better first to ask what position the organisation has adopted, who has established it with internal authority, and to what extent it is aligned across its various levels and channels.
Public relations does not begin with the interview, but long before that. It begins when an organisation decides what position it wishes to occupy within its sector, in the public discourse, and in its relationship with the various groups that observe it.
Without that groundwork, even the most eloquent spokesperson can only act as a partial interpreter. They may do so with great intelligence, and even with tactical acumen, but they will not build a cumulative position because there is no defined position to uphold.
This has significant implications for management. The quality of a spokesperson’s role should not be assessed solely on the basis of visible performance, but also in terms of structural consistency. It is the same principle that governs communication as a management function: if communication is not integrated into strategic decision-making, there cannot be any spokespersons who embody anything more than their own interpretation.
When discourse is governed, the role of spokesperson ceases to be merely a series of public appearances and becomes a function of the communication system. Every public statement adds depth. Each spokesperson can fulfil their role without disrupting the whole. Every new context tests the framework, but does not replace it.
This is particularly relevant in an environment where authority is no longer built on isolated actions, but through consistent repetition. Organisations are assessed by decision-makers, the media, the public, and also by systems that detect patterns, relationships and consistency. In this context, public speaking cannot rely solely on individual skill.
First the context, then the spokesperson
It is best to conclude by taking a clear stance. Investing in training spokespersons is not a mistake. Thinking that such training can make up for the lack of a strategic framework, however, is.
This is not a question of value, but of timing. Media training is highly effective when delivered at the right moment. It boosts confidence, improves performance, helps people stick to their message under pressure, and reduces avoidable mistakes. But it cannot define criteria that the organisation has not already established. It cannot bring together voices that have never shared the same discourse.
First, you need to decide what stance you want to take. Next, you need to translate that stance into a framework that is clear and shared by those who will be presenting it. Only then does it make sense to practise how to convey it in interviews, public appearances or high-pressure situations.
The opposite leads to a false sense of control. The organisation believes it has professionalised its public communications because it has invested in technical resources, but it has still not answered the crucial question: from what perspective does it wish to speak when addressing the public?
That question is not a minor one. A polished spokesperson without a clear framework may make a good impression but, at the same time, undermine the organisation’s positioning. A less polished spokesperson, but one who is aligned with a solid framework, can build greater authority over time.
Strategic advocacy is, in short, about better defending a position. And to do that, rather than trained spokespeople, we need organisations that have done the groundwork of defining what they are prepared to stand for when they speak out.
