At Some Point, You Have to Stop Repeating the Bad News

When things go horribly wrong, leaders face the difficult challenge of repairing a reputation and credibility that is now suspect. 

This requires gathering the pertinent information and crafting a plan to respond that exudes the integrity and competence that will effectively address the misstep or error. Openly explaining what happened, why it happened, and what the remedy is going forward is all that can be done. 

People on the inside and outside naturally want to talk about this “news” and the shift in meaning it has created for them. They will ask repeatedly to go over the same ground as to why the event occurred and how it can be avoided in the future. 

Good leaders are patient in this process. They accept that people who were affected need to vent, be heard, and offer their views. They understand that rehashing the crisis is a part of the healing process. They deliberately allow others to take their time to thoroughly consider the events in question. 

At some point, however, the explanations and accounts will become fully explored. The remedy or response in place will work to reestablish the credibility that was threatened and rebuild the trust that has been lost. There is nothing else to say or do. Yet, the questions don’t stop. The inquiry continues. People want to remind the leader that the issue has residual effects and can’t be easily swept away. 

At this moment in time, leaders have a critical choice to make. They can continue to address and readdress the crisis or they can decide to move forward and not backward. In every crisis or reputationally altering event, there comes a point where the bad news is keeping the bad news alive. By giving the crisis more oxygen, the leader allows it to burn. 

At a point in time when the issues have been fully discussed, developed, and managed, good leaders decide consciously not to discuss the crisis any further. While this frustrates those who prefer to push and prod the issues, the smart call is for leaders to insist on looking only forward. Even temporarily revisiting the crisis reopens the wounds and prevents real closure from happening. 

Revisiting the crisis once again is an easy mistake to make. In an attempt to be open, cooperative, and non-defensive, too many leaders succumb to what others want them to do rather than what is in the best interest of the enterprise. They would be better off heeding their own intuition. 

Keeping the bad news permanently on the agenda is a losing strategy. While there is no clear line as to when leaders need to press on and reject any discussion of the past, deciding on that moment is essential. Closure and the ability of the team or organization to move forward depend on it. 

At a certain point in time in every crisis, the bad news is when leaders allow the bad news to stay alive.