A strategic reason for a leader to resign is to de-escalate public tension. After a crisis, the leader can become a symbol of that difficult period. By stepping down, they absorb the negative sentiment, lower the political temperature, and allow their organization to move forward.

Related Insights

For a controversial strategic shift, a co-founder's "moral authority" is invaluable. They can absorb the risk of looking foolish and give up their responsibilities ("Legos") to spearhead a new initiative. This allows them to champion a new direction with a level of credibility that can overcome internal skepticism.

In analyzing a public scandal, Scott Galloway notes that the greatest damage in a crisis typically isn't the initial event but the subsequent "shrapnel": the attempts to cover up, excuse, or avoid accountability. An effective response requires acknowledging the problem, taking responsibility, and overcorrecting.

In a crisis, the instinct is to shout louder and match escalating chaos. True leadership involves 'energetic jujitsu': deliberately slowing down and bringing calmness to the situation. This rare skill is more powerful than simply increasing intensity.

Stakeholders demand courageous leadership but foster a culture of intolerance. By failing to distinguish between major offenses and minor infractions and "canceling" leaders for mistakes, the public itself disincentivizes the very courage and authenticity it seeks, creating a paralyzing circular problem.

In leadership, especially during conflict, you have a choice. You can be a 'thermometer,' merely reacting to the emotional temperature of the room, or a 'thermostat,' actively setting and controlling it. Great leaders intentionally manage the environment, calming panic or creating urgency as needed, rather than mirroring the ambient mood.

If a decision has universal agreement, a leader isn't adding value because the group would have reached that conclusion anyway. True leadership is demonstrated when you make a difficult, unpopular choice that others would not, guiding the organization through necessary but painful steps.

In a crisis, the public knows no one has all the answers. Attempting to project absolute certainty backfires. A more effective strategy is "confident humility": transparently sharing information gaps and explaining that plans will evolve as new data emerges, which builds credibility.

Empathy, defined as merely feeling another's pain, is overrated and can lead to inaction. Effective leadership requires compassion: understanding a problem, feeling a connection, identifying a solution, and having the courage to implement it, even when it's difficult or unpopular.

In volatile times, the instinct is to act decisively and quickly. Brené Brown argues the more effective approach is to pause, assess the situation holistically (like a soccer player controlling the ball), and then make a strategic move. This prevents reactive, scarcity-driven decisions that often backfire.

Leading with empathy is emotionally draining, but it's not compassion that causes fatigue—it's the distress of witnessing suffering without being able to help. For leaders, the ability to take meaningful action during crises makes the emotional cost a worthwhile price to pay.