Why Transparency and Accountability Often Matter More Than Confidence in Crisis Leadership
On the eve of the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower carried two messages in his pocket.
The first was the one history remembers. It was a statement expressing confidence in the Allied forces as they prepared to launch the largest amphibious invasion ever attempted. The second was never intended to be seen. It was his handwritten note accepting full responsibility if the invasion failed.
Eisenhower understood something many leaders still struggle to appreciate today. Confidence inspires people. Accountability earns their trust.
And that distinction matters because it challenges an enduring leadership myth: that trust is built during a crisis. Organizations do not magically become trustworthy during crises. They discover whether they built the capacity to be trusted before the crisis arrived.
For decades, leadership playbooks assumed crises would arrive one at a time and, historically, that had been the case. A cybersecurity incident. A product recall. A geopolitical conflict. Executive misconduct. Leaders and boards would navigate the disruption, stabilize the organization, and prepare for the next challenge.
Today's leaders rarely enjoy that luxury.
Conference Board's C-Suite Outlook 2026 suggests “a shift in how CEOs view uncertainty. Rather than viewing it as a short-term disruption, executives may instead be recognizing uncertainty as a persistent and even structural characteristic of the business environment."
As I have written, stakeholders do not expect leaders to predict every outcome. They do expect leaders to explain what matters most, communicate the principles guiding difficult decisions, and provide confidence that the organization has a thoughtful path forward.
In our current environment, confidence alone is no longer enough. Confidence may reassure people in the moment, but it does not sustain credibility over time.
Credibility requires judgment, consistency, candor, empathy, accountability, and emotional steadiness. Those capabilities and the organizational culture, relationships, and governance systems that support them must exist before they are tested.
As Deepa Purushothaman and Colleen Ammerman recently observed (registration required) in Harvard Business Review, "Leaders who thrive in this moment aren't those who have all the answers. They're the ones who can name uncertainty, stay grounded in principle, and lead with care."
Brian Chesky offers, "You need to be optimistic. But it can't be optimism that's delusional. It has to be rooted in some truth, some reality." In a crisis, hope matters, but only when it remains connected to facts, sound judgment, and transparency. Leaders must “hold” the organization, contain anxiety, help people interpret confusing events, offer clear direction, and preserve connection.
A recent Harvard Business Review study on elite sports coaches found that the world's best coaches do not rely on instinct alone when the game is on the line. They spend years developing systems before the critical moment arrives. They rehearse scenarios, build trust, strengthen communication, and create routines that allow sound judgment to prevail under pressure.
The lesson extends well beyond sports. Organizations that perform well under pressure rarely improvise their way to success. They rely on relationships, decision-making processes, and cultures that have been developed over time.
What sometimes begins as a technical problem like a cybersecurity incident or an AI deployment gone wrong quickly becomes an organizational one with reputational consequences.
The recent reports surrounding OpenAI and Anthropic's security challenges illustrate how quickly that transformation can occur. A technical incident no longer remains solely the responsibility of engineers. Within hours it can become a question of consumer trust, enterprise governance, competitive positioning, public policy, and national security. In today's environment, every significant technology event is also a leadership event.
IBM's 2026 CEO Study found that organizations are redesigning their executive teams around AI, with more than three-quarters now reporting the appointment of a chief AI officer. CEOs expect AI to influence nearly half of operational decisions by the end of the decade.
Technology is evolving rapidly. I have observed that more significant transformation is happening inside organizations themselves. Leadership is becoming less about managing individual crises and more about building institutions capable of absorbing continuous change without losing the trust of the people they serve.
At my organization, BBB National Programs, we have seen this principle tested repeatedly. The organizations that navigate disruption without losing stakeholder confidence are almost always those that made accountability structural before it became necessary. Demonstrated trust is not a crisis response. It is preparation.
At its best, industry self-regulation gives organizations the opportunity to establish shared standards, independent accountability, and transparent expectations before they are tested by market disruption, technological change, or public scrutiny. Rather than waiting for a crisis or for regulation to catch up, it creates a common framework that helps organizations innovate responsibly while strengthening consumer confidence.
This year's Forbes Research CxO Growth Survey reinforces that reality. Executives ranked trust and reputation ahead of AI and innovation as factors shaping long-term business performance. Technology represented both the greatest opportunity and the greatest challenge.
That finding should not surprise us. Innovation creates possibilities. Trust determines whether those possibilities endure.
Eisenhower carried two messages in his pocket. One expressed confidence. The other accepted responsibility. History remembers the first. Great leadership requires both.
Originally published in Forbes
The first was the one history remembers. It was a statement expressing confidence in the Allied forces as they prepared to launch the largest amphibious invasion ever attempted. The second was never intended to be seen. It was his handwritten note accepting full responsibility if the invasion failed.
Eisenhower understood something many leaders still struggle to appreciate today. Confidence inspires people. Accountability earns their trust.
And that distinction matters because it challenges an enduring leadership myth: that trust is built during a crisis. Organizations do not magically become trustworthy during crises. They discover whether they built the capacity to be trusted before the crisis arrived.
For decades, leadership playbooks assumed crises would arrive one at a time and, historically, that had been the case. A cybersecurity incident. A product recall. A geopolitical conflict. Executive misconduct. Leaders and boards would navigate the disruption, stabilize the organization, and prepare for the next challenge.
Today's leaders rarely enjoy that luxury.
When Crises Stop Arriving One at a Time
In recent months, CEOs have navigated export controls affecting AI development, supply chain and evolving tariffs, court decisions reshaping the regulatory landscape, growing geopolitical instability, and the rapid deployment of agentic AI systems. These challenges stack. Together, they create an environment where leaders are making consequential decisions while disruptions unfold simultaneously.Conference Board's C-Suite Outlook 2026 suggests “a shift in how CEOs view uncertainty. Rather than viewing it as a short-term disruption, executives may instead be recognizing uncertainty as a persistent and even structural characteristic of the business environment."
As I have written, stakeholders do not expect leaders to predict every outcome. They do expect leaders to explain what matters most, communicate the principles guiding difficult decisions, and provide confidence that the organization has a thoughtful path forward.
In our current environment, confidence alone is no longer enough. Confidence may reassure people in the moment, but it does not sustain credibility over time.
Credibility requires judgment, consistency, candor, empathy, accountability, and emotional steadiness. Those capabilities and the organizational culture, relationships, and governance systems that support them must exist before they are tested.
As Deepa Purushothaman and Colleen Ammerman recently observed (registration required) in Harvard Business Review, "Leaders who thrive in this moment aren't those who have all the answers. They're the ones who can name uncertainty, stay grounded in principle, and lead with care."
Brian Chesky offers, "You need to be optimistic. But it can't be optimism that's delusional. It has to be rooted in some truth, some reality." In a crisis, hope matters, but only when it remains connected to facts, sound judgment, and transparency. Leaders must “hold” the organization, contain anxiety, help people interpret confusing events, offer clear direction, and preserve connection.
A recent Harvard Business Review study on elite sports coaches found that the world's best coaches do not rely on instinct alone when the game is on the line. They spend years developing systems before the critical moment arrives. They rehearse scenarios, build trust, strengthen communication, and create routines that allow sound judgment to prevail under pressure.
The lesson extends well beyond sports. Organizations that perform well under pressure rarely improvise their way to success. They rely on relationships, decision-making processes, and cultures that have been developed over time.
What sometimes begins as a technical problem like a cybersecurity incident or an AI deployment gone wrong quickly becomes an organizational one with reputational consequences.
The recent reports surrounding OpenAI and Anthropic's security challenges illustrate how quickly that transformation can occur. A technical incident no longer remains solely the responsibility of engineers. Within hours it can become a question of consumer trust, enterprise governance, competitive positioning, public policy, and national security. In today's environment, every significant technology event is also a leadership event.
IBM's 2026 CEO Study found that organizations are redesigning their executive teams around AI, with more than three-quarters now reporting the appointment of a chief AI officer. CEOs expect AI to influence nearly half of operational decisions by the end of the decade.
Technology is evolving rapidly. I have observed that more significant transformation is happening inside organizations themselves. Leadership is becoming less about managing individual crises and more about building institutions capable of absorbing continuous change without losing the trust of the people they serve.
At my organization, BBB National Programs, we have seen this principle tested repeatedly. The organizations that navigate disruption without losing stakeholder confidence are almost always those that made accountability structural before it became necessary. Demonstrated trust is not a crisis response. It is preparation.
Building the Capacity to Be Trusted
In a marketplace where trust must be demonstrated rather than assumed, internal commitments alone are no longer sufficient. One important part of the answer is independent industry self-regulation.At its best, industry self-regulation gives organizations the opportunity to establish shared standards, independent accountability, and transparent expectations before they are tested by market disruption, technological change, or public scrutiny. Rather than waiting for a crisis or for regulation to catch up, it creates a common framework that helps organizations innovate responsibly while strengthening consumer confidence.
This year's Forbes Research CxO Growth Survey reinforces that reality. Executives ranked trust and reputation ahead of AI and innovation as factors shaping long-term business performance. Technology represented both the greatest opportunity and the greatest challenge.
That finding should not surprise us. Innovation creates possibilities. Trust determines whether those possibilities endure.
Eisenhower carried two messages in his pocket. One expressed confidence. The other accepted responsibility. History remembers the first. Great leadership requires both.
Originally published in Forbes