Banner artwork by Gajus / Shutterstock.com
Crises expose much more than operational gaps — they test leadership judgment, organizational rhythm, and cultural readiness.
Whether the issue is a data incident, regulatory pressure, market volatility, reputational risk, or internal disruption, the pattern is the same: Crises compress time, elevate stakes, and challenge leaders to make meaningful decisions with imperfect information.
But the real differentiator between teams who recover and teams who repeat their mistakes isn’t what happens during the crisis — it’s what happens after.
The strongest organizations operate with a discipline of reflection.
Not blame.
Not politics.
Not narrative shaping.
Reflection designed to sharpen judgment.
Over the years, I’ve found there are four foundational questions every board, executive team, and legal leader should ask after the dust settles.
I’ve frequently said, “Crisis reveals more about leadership than failure.”
1. What really happened — fact, not narrative?
In a crisis, “noise” becomes the first adversary. Stakeholders have different versions of events. Information arrives out of order. Assumptions look like facts. Fear distorts communication.
The first task is simple: build a factual, neutral, unembellished timeline.
Key considerations:
- What precisely triggered the incident?
- What happened in what order?
- What actions were taken, delayed, or misinterpreted?
- What information was missing, siloed, or misunderstood?
This step is often uncomfortable because clarity requires honesty — but without it, everything downstream becomes guesswork.
Organizations with strong crisis maturity treat fact-finding as a leadership discipline, not an administrative chore.
Crisis reveals more about leadership than failure.
2. Where were our blind spots?
Every crisis contains a blind spot — something the organization did not see, did not elevate, chose to underweight, or flat-out ignore.
Blind spots typically surface in six areas:
- Operational: A process was assumed, not confirmed
- Governance: A risk wasn’t escalated to the board early enough
- Communication: Critical information was trapped in a silo
- Cultural: Teams weren’t empowered to raise concerns
- Technical: Monitoring or controls lacked depth or maturity
- Behavioral: Team goals were prioritized over risk awareness
This question is not about perfection; it is about pattern recognition. Leaders who study blind spots without defensiveness build organizational judgment — and judgment becomes foresight.
“When you name the blind spot, you build judgment. When you ignore it, you build fragility.”
3. What signals did we miss before it broke?
Signals always exist.
Sometimes faint. Sometimes fragmented. Sometimes deprioritized.
But they are there.
This question reframes crisis as a signal detection training ground.
Ask:
- What did we know but undervalue?
- What did we see but rationalize?
- What did we hear but fail to escalate?
- What did we misread, postpone, downplay, or ignore?
Signal audits become powerful when leaders resist the urge to defend past choices. They train the organization to treat emerging risk as a strategic early-warning system, not a compliance checkbox.
In an era of accelerating AI exposure, cybersecurity complexity, geopolitical risk, and regulatory shifts — signal literacy is a competitive advantage.
When you name the blind spot, you build judgment. When you ignore it, you build fragility.
4. What needs to change today to prevent a repeat?
Insight without action is just a narrative.
Narratives don’t prevent the next crisis — systems do.
This final question drives operational change:
- What governance mechanism needs refinement?
- What decision-making process must evolve?
- What roles or accountabilities must shift?
- What must be documented, automated, or made explicit?
- What communication rhythm must be strengthened?
This is where purpose and clarity matter most.
Purpose defines why the change matters.
Clarity defines what must shift and who must own it.
The organizations that improve fastest are those that translate insight into action immediately — before urgency fades.
“A crisis without operational change is simply an expensive story.”
Crisis as a leadership teacher
Crises reveal the leadership culture of an organization with startling honesty.
Crisis shows whether communication is transparent or filtered.
Crisis shows whether decision-making is structured or reactive.
Crisis shows whether purpose guides behavior or pressure does.
Crisis shows whether trust is strong enough to support urgency.
Leaders who adopt the four-question discipline turn crises into clarity.
Boards who adopt it turn oversight into foresight.
Organizations who adopt it turn experience into resilience.
This is decision discipline — the rhythm of asking the right questions at the right time.
Why this matters for the “Next Generation GC”
The modern in-house leader — especially the GC or CLO — is no longer measured by legal accuracy alone. They are measured by the clarity they create, the judgment they model, and the trust they rebuild after disruption.
Crisis leadership is now a core competency for the GC of the future.
The “Next Generation GC” will be:
- A business architect, not just a risk manager
- A translator of complexity, not a collector of information
- A clarity creator, aligning decisions across the organization
- A trust builder, strengthening culture under pressure
- A purpose-guided leader, grounding decisions in values, not fear
These four questions serve as a blueprint for that evolution.
A crisis without operational change is simply an expensive story.
Conclusion
Crisis will always test organizations. The question is whether leaders will use crisis to strengthen their decision muscles, sharpen their foresight, and build cultures anchored in trust.
If you practice this four-question discipline, you will:
- Improve outcomes
- Strengthen governance
- Build alignment
- Expand organizational judgment
- And ultimately, lead with more confidence and purpose
Because clarity compounds.
And so does trust.
Disclaimer: The information in any resource in this website should not be construed as legal advice or as a legal opinion on specific facts, and should not be considered representing the views of its authors, its sponsors, and/or ACC. These resources are not intended as a definitive statement on the subject addressed. Rather, they are intended to serve as a tool providing practical guidance and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers.
