History shows the U.S. has a unique ability for systemic reform in response to crises, such as when the Gilded Age's excesses gave way to the deep structural changes of the Progressive Era. This suggests a capacity to overcome today's political fractures.

Many brands retreat to safety during turmoil. However, a true existential crisis can be a unique opportunity, forcing teams to abandon failing playbooks and embrace the unorthodox, high-risk creative ideas that would otherwise be rejected by the system.

According to Team Rubicon CEO Jake Wood, while good leaders manage chaos, the best ones see it as an opportunity, not an obstacle. They use moments of crisis to unlock agility and ingenuity, enabling their teams to surge forward with bold action instead of retreating.

Rahm Emanuel argues against simply "following the science" in a crisis because data is often unclear and evolving in real-time. Effective leaders must accept uncertainty and make informed, educated guesses, acknowledging that waiting for perfect information is not an option when stakes are high.

Beyond 'fight or flight,' Mercy Corps' CEO identifies a third, more dangerous crisis response: 'freeze.' She argues that holding still or failing to adapt guarantees a slow demise. For leaders facing existential threats, radical rethinking is the only viable path forward, even when the future is uncertain.

IBM's CEO found the COVID-19 pandemic made his corporate transformation 'much easier.' Widespread external disruption creates an environment where employees are more accepting of internal change, allowing leaders to implement difficult decisions in one year instead of three or four.

People rarely change proactively. They wait until the discomfort of their current situation becomes so unbearable that it finally eclipses their fear of making a different choice and stepping into uncertainty. This crisis is often the necessary catalyst.

Rahm Emanuel defends the 2009 financial bailout and stimulus as "really good policy" that prevented a depression, but simultaneously the "worst political decisions" possible. This highlights the inherent conflict leaders face between implementing what is effective for long-term stability and what is popular with the public in the short term.

Historian Anne Applebaum observes that significant US constitutional amendments often follow profound national traumas like the Revolution or the Civil War. This suggests that without a similar large-scale crisis, mustering the collective will to address deep-seated issues like systemic corruption is historically difficult, as there is no single moment of reckoning.