How Companies Should Define Their Values Before a Crisis Hits
Leadership teams must pressure-test their values before public scrutiny forces them to react.
1The Charlottesville crucible
In 2017, companies with CEOs on presidential advisory councils faced intense scrutiny after the Unite the Right rally. The author's company became unexpectedly embroiled in a national conversation about values. Internal communications teams struggled to craft responses that satisfied multiple stakeholders while maintaining business relationships. This experience revealed how unprepared most organizations are when their values get publicly tested.
2Silence speaks volumes
During controversies, many leaders assume silence avoids risk. However, when issues directly affect employees, customers or business operations, silence becomes its own message. Stakeholders interpret the absence of a clear position through their existing beliefs about the company. The article outlines three key questions leaders should ask before choosing silence as a strategy in sensitive situations.
3Pre-crisis value alignment
Organizations that navigate crises successfully typically have pre-established value frameworks. The author recommends leadership teams pressure-test values during strategy sessions before controversies arise. This involves creating realistic scenarios that could put the organization under public pressure and fundamentally asking: 'What do we actually believe?' Inconsistent answers reveal needed work.
4Decision pattern recognition
Stakeholders quickly notice inconsistencies between stated values and actions. The article suggests reviewing 5-10 recent significant decisions to see if they tell a coherent story about organizational values. Leaders often underestimate how closely employees and customers track whether actions match professed beliefs, especially during controversial moments.
5Transparent decision processes
The author observes that leaders spend more energy communicating decisions than explaining how they were reached. When people understand the principles guiding everyday decisions, they're more likely to trust leadership during crises. Building transparency into promotion decisions, strategic shifts and difficult tradeoffs creates organizational trust over time.
6Crisis as revelation
Contrary to common belief, crises don't define organizations as much as they reveal existing leadership patterns. The article argues that long before controversies emerge, companies are already establishing their leadership character through daily decisions. Difficult moments simply make these patterns visible to external observers.
7Consistency over position
The author found that organizations facing similar controversies had different outcomes based not on their specific positions, but on consistency. When values appear in recruiting materials but disappear during difficult moments, credibility erodes. Stakeholders forgive disagreements more easily than perceived hypocrisy.
8Building decision-making muscle
Trust accumulates through countless small decisions before a crisis hits. Every promotion, public statement and values-testing moment becomes a data point stakeholders use to evaluate leadership. The article concludes that the best crisis preparation is establishing clear, consistent decision-making frameworks long before they're needed under pressure.