The incident may make the headlines, but your response shapes what happens next.
A defensive statement, an insensitive gesture or a public argument can create a second crisis. Suddenly, stakeholders are questioning both what happened and whether leadership can be trusted to handle it. Recent business headlines offer useful lessons.
Keep accountability ahead of blame. Good Good Golf faced backlash over an advertisement depicting violence against a woman. CEO Matt Kendrick then publicly accused partner Callaway of shifting responsibility onto Good Good, and he departed days later. When a public dispute becomes part of the story, it can quickly drown out messages about accountability and repair.
Match your response to the harm—and recognize the pattern. Travelodge UK faced scrutiny over multiple guest-security incidents, including assaults after staff gave men access to women’s rooms. CEO Joanna Boydell resigned in August amid the fallout. An independent review found guest-reported room intrusions at nearly one in 10 hotels and condemned the handling of a sexual-assault survivor’s complaint. The lesson: repeated safety failures demand timely executive action, empathy and demonstrable fixes. Treating serious harm as a routine complaint can deepen the injury and turn operational failures into a crisis of leadership and trust.
Recognize that stakeholders remember. Target’s August 2026 apology for an offensive Halloween costume came with reputational baggage. In 2023, it removed some Pride merchandise following threats to employees, prompting criticism from LGBTQ+ supporters that it was abandoning the community. In February 2024, Target pulled a children’s learning kit that misidentified Black historical figures Carter G. Woodson, W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington. Its January 2025 rollback of diversity initiatives then triggered boycott calls and accusations of broken trust. Against that history, another apology carries a heavier burden. Target acknowledged the costume’s harm and promised a review. The communication lesson: explain what will change and demonstrate follow-through. Repeated controversies can make each new apology less persuasive.
Before you send your next crisis response, pause and ask:
- Does it acknowledge the people affected?
- Does it accept responsibility for what we know?
- Does it explain what we are doing now?
- Does it promise only what we can deliver?
- Does it tell stakeholders when they will hear more?
Ask someone outside the immediate response team to read the message. What sounds dismissive, evasive or self-protective to them? A fresh perspective can catch language the leadership team no longer notices.
You may not control the original event. But you can control whether your response adds confusion, resentment or another reason for people to distrust you. Make it count.
