Omnicrisis and the End of Conventional Crisis Logic

What the Omnicrisis Is

The omnicrisis is not a single event. It is a persistent state that runs through our daily lives. Multiple crises occur simultaneously, overlap, and reinforce each other (see definition by Mathias Horx). Energy prices, war, supply chains, disinformation, internal conflicts, labor shortages—all interact, causing multiple crises to happen at once or one crisis to trigger another. The result? A constant state that not only stresses organizations and challenges communication but, above all, burdens the people within them—leaders, teams, and employees.

Complexity as a New Fundamental Condition

The omnicrisis is not just “a lot happening.” It is complex. Complexity means:

• Multiple influencing factors occurring simultaneously

• Limited predictability

• Non-linear cause-and-effect chains

• And a public that comments on and amplifies this dynamic in real time

The Perception Crisis

The media environment in an omnicrisis is characterized by collective overstimulation and fragmented perception: the constant digital media flood amplifies societal hysteria and leads even everyday or harmless phenomena to be perceived as threatening. Classical frames of meaning lose their effectiveness as hypermedialization and rapid technological change polarize public discourse, and knowledge acquisition and personal identity are increasingly shaped by differentiation rather than understanding. Media thus act as an amplifier of general uncertainty and helplessness, no longer merely informing but driving emotional attention and controversial exaggeration, making orientation in a complex crisis landscape even more difficult.

People at the Center – Often at Their Limits

This complexity affects not only systems but, above all, people. Leaders and communicators today operate in a high-pressure environment that should not be underestimated:

• They are expected to make decisions even when facts are incomplete.

• They are expected to convey calm, even when they themselves feel disoriented.

• They are expected to formulate clear messages while the situation changes hourly.

• And they are expected to build trust, even as they internally wonder how long they can keep this up.

Classic Crisis Mechanisms as a Foundation

Crisis manuals, checklists, and processes remain essential—they form the foundation of professional crisis communication. To provide comprehensive support in an omnicrisis, however, extended approaches are needed:

• How do you communicate when uncertainty is not a phase but the norm?

• How do you maintain interpretive authority when millions of individual gatekeepers participate in the discourse?

• How do you explain complexity in an understandable way?

• How do you stay present even when you doubt yourself?

• And: How do you protect the people who have to communicate from overload?

What Communication Must Be Able to Do Now

The media landscape in an omnicrisis represents a new communication reality, in which old certainties and classic action guidelines increasingly fail. It is characterized by a constant crisis mode that forces individuals and organizations to develop new principles of communication—principles that account for uncertainty, overwhelm, and complexity.

At the core is the principle of presence over perfection: people no longer demand flawless messages, but to be seen and taken seriously in the moment. This means communicative accessibility and personal engagement are more important than formal correctness.

Second, the current situation demands clarity despite complexity: rather than minimizing the multifaceted nature of events, the task is to provide orientation—through understandable context, highlighting relevant interconnections, and having the courage to acknowledge what remains unresolved.

The third core principle is truthfulness: communicators in an omnicrisis must not disguise uncertainty as weakness but should be transparent about what is known—and equally open about what remains unclear. Honesty about the limits of knowledge and information is now a decisive factor in building trust.

Fourth, scenario-based thinking shapes communication: the uncertainties of the omnicrisis require communicating possibilities and contingencies—not just “what is,” but also “what could happen.” This prepares audiences and enables a discourse about potential actions rather than waiting passively for developments.

Finally, the human factor is central: the stresses of the omnicrisis affect each individual’s communication ability. Those who communicate must take care of themselves to continue speaking constructively, coherently, and empathetically—because in a permanent state of exception, it is not enough to provide knowledge; the critical factor is how resilient and humanly the process is carried out.

In sum, a communicative practice emerges that is more present, clearer, truthful, forward-looking, and human—because only in this way can trust be built and orientation provided in the omnicrisis.