The competitor’s product launched in early March, and by the end of the month it was obvious it was taking share.
Everyone knew. Sales knew first, the way sales always does. It was in the pipeline numbers, it was in the conversations, and it had been the subject of parking-lot discussion for about two weeks before anyone senior said the word out loud.
The CEO’s instinct was to wait. Not to hide — to prepare. He didn’t want to stand up and describe a problem without also describing the response, because that felt like panic, and panic is contagious.
So he took three weeks and built a good plan.
(A composite. The pattern is real; the company isn’t.)
By the time he presented it, two of his best people had started interviewing.
What the silence actually communicated
He thought he was buying time. What he was buying was a vacuum, and vacuums don’t stay empty.
The gap between when a team senses something and when the leader names it is not neutral time. People fill it, and they fill it with the worst available version — not because they’re pessimists, but because in the absence of information the worst version is the only one that prepares you.
And the specific thing they concluded was worse than any of the scenarios. It wasn’t “the company is in trouble.” It was: either he can’t see it, or he can and he’s not telling us. Both of those are disqualifying, and both are about him rather than about the market.
Three weeks of silence answered a question about his competence that the market never asked.
What he did the second time
Eighteen months later, a major supplier failed with almost no warning.
He was in front of the company within two days, without a plan, and said approximately this: here’s what happened, here’s what it means as far as we currently understand it, here’s what I don’t know yet, here’s what we’re doing this week to find out, and I’ll be back on Friday whether or not I have more.
That is not a comfortable thing to say. It contains an admission that the person in charge doesn’t know something.
It also bought him more credibility than the polished three-week plan ever had — because people were not waiting for him to solve it. They were waiting to find out whether he could see it.
Naming it badly beats naming it late
“This isn’t working and I don’t have the answer yet” is a complete sentence, and it is a stronger one than most leaders believe.
The instinct to wait for a solution treats the team as an audience to be presented to. But during adversity they aren’t an audience, they’re participants, and the thing they’re evaluating is not the quality of your plan. It’s whether you’re oriented to reality.
You can demonstrate that in forty-eight hours with no plan at all. You cannot demonstrate it in three weeks of silence followed by excellent slides.
Where to start this week
Name the thing everyone knows. If there’s a problem your team is discussing and you aren’t, the cost of your silence is already accruing.
Separate the naming from the solving. They’re different meetings. Getting the first one right buys you the time to do the second one properly.
Commit to a return date. “I’ll be back Friday whether or not I have news” converts an open-ended vacuum into a defined wait, and you can keep that promise on the weeks you have nothing.
More on this is in Chapter 7 — Confronting Adversity With Leadership of Firm Foundations. See also Nobody Follows a Leader in Retreat.
Working on this with a real team and want a second set of eyes? Start a conversation, or book a 30-minute call. No pitch — just a look at what you are actually dealing with.
Leave a Reply