The toll of firms constantly changing their minds during the pandemic was heavy. Even so, avoiding it in the future may not be easy.

By Russell Pearlman | Design by Hayley Kennell

hover to explore

The Problem

The pandemic likely won’t end the rash of leaders making one decision and then countermanding it a short time later.

WHY IT MATTERS

With every course correction, leaders risk losing credibility and the trust of their stakeholders.

THE SOLUTION

Communicate clearly why each choice is made, and slow down the decision-making process, even if it’s just for a moment.

it began in mid-March 2020. Not just the pandemic and the slew of business lockdowns, of course, but the round after round of decision making.

For most organizations,

The first wave of decisions had many leaders choosing to send millions of employees home rather than shutting down operations altogether. This was going to be for two weeks only, many said, just long enough for COVID-19 to extinguish itself. Other corporations, meanwhile, soon decided to forge on, asking key workers back into the office with health screenings and glass partitions. That move was reversed when a handful of workers caught the virus. In these early months, leaders needed to make some other calls; those who had said efficiency was king now told managers to scramble to find as many new suppliers as possible. For a time, some firms held on to the idea that workers could still attend critical client meetings or conferences in coming months—only to reverse the decision and tell everyone to scrap all future travel.

“What’s at stake is the entire reputation of the company, trust in corporate leadership, and in turn the brand.”

It wasn’t that long ago that major cases of whiplash leadership appeared only occasionally, such as a company teetering on bankruptcy or a group of companies located in an area hit by a hurricane or other weather disaster. Even then, there usually was a defined period; the company went bankrupt and the leaders were replaced, or the area recovered from the disaster. To a smaller degree, firms also had to flip-flop during major product rollouts or marketing campaigns, testing the customer or client base in a bid to expand it, only to discover that they had overreached. Some argue that whiplash leadership is actually necessary in a start-up environment. Leaders need to be able to change plans fast—sometimes entire business models—or they might not only miss out on opportunities but also run out of money. This isn’t flip-flopping, these experts say, it’s strong leadership.

But when decisions on the same subject are made repeatedly, there can be a fine line between executives displaying strong leadership and looking untrustworthy. For three years in the 2010s, professors from Temple University, Colorado State, and the China Europe International Business School conducted multiple studies to understand what affects leaders’ credibility. They wanted to know how that credibility influences employee behaviors and organizational success. The professors surveyed both blue- and white-collar employees across the United States and found that there are only a few key factors that workers, regardless of their role, use to determine a leader’s credibility. “Being a trustworthy leader means making decisions that aren’t contradictory,” says Lynne Andersson, a professor at Temple who conducted the research. In contrast, two of the top reasons why leaders are viewed as untrustworthy are when they communicate and behave inconsistently. Changing decisions frequently—and over long periods of time—is often perceived as inconsistent behavior. And when leaders lose credibility, workers might consider just leaving. Employees are less tolerant of untrustworthy behaviors than of incompetency, Andersson says. “It’s more difficult to regain credibility once it’s lost than to build credibility in the first place.”

“Leadership is a human endeavor, yet the pace is inhuman.”

During the pandemic, of course, whiplash leadership was seemingly on display at thousands of firms. “COVID forced many leaders to make decisions on safety, business strategy, and other critical issues at a pace and risk level they have never experienced,” says Tina Nunno, a distinguished analyst at Gartner, a research and advisory firm. Most believe that the bulk of this was unavoidable, but some experts say that at least some decisions—such as CEOs predicting when business would return to normal or rejecting hybrid work models too quickly—might have been fueled by a long history of training executives to be bold leaders who make clear, declarative statements with tangible deadlines. This alone has caused numerous reversals and cancellations. “A lot of leaders feel that they have to look strong, which means not changing their minds,” says Paul Lambert, a Korn Ferry senior client partner in London. The problem is that looking strong translated into prioritizing traditional business values, not taking into account the physical and mental impact of their decisions on stakeholders. Those hardships add up. “What’s at stake is the entire reputation of the company, trust in corporate leadership, and in turn the brand,” says Peter McDermott, a Korn Ferry senior client partner who specializes in global corporate affairs and investor relations.

The ongoing pandemic and accompanying supply-chain woes could likely make some decisions, such as return-to-office timelines, impractical only a few weeks after they’re made. How executives communicate each decision is critical. The “we are telling you” approach won’t work, says Korn Ferry’s McDermott. With each communication, whether it’s with employees, customers, or other stakeholders, executives have to mention how they’ve consulted with experts about options. Employees in particular have to feel like the leader has the group’s health and safety in mind with each decision. Workers also should have a way to communicate their perspectives back to management. That communication can allow the firm’s human resources teams to step in and interact with the employees. “Even if leadership is hesitant to hear potentially negative commentary, the employees feel better about being heard,” McDermott says. But experts say there’s often a way executives can avoid whiplash leadership entirely. “I find when leaders change their minds too quickly, it’s not because the world has changed, it’s because they didn’t do the proper decision making in the first place,” Pattampalli says.

“Elite athletes can slow the game down and play calmly; leaders must do the same.”

Even those wary of engaging in whiplash leadership found themselves experiencing it. “It was like a wildfire,” says Russell Furr, an associate vice provost at Stanford University, who helped make the calls on when the campus would close and reopen during the pandemic. The first round of decisions—around closing the campus—evolved so fast, and facts were in short supply. The school sent everyone home. But as the weeks wore on, leaders had to deal with the impacts of that previous decision. The school was constantly revising guidance on who could come back to campus, and for how long, and what activities were allowed. “The hardest thing we’ve had to contend with is the knowledge that every restriction, no matter how necessary in terms of keeping people safe, creates hardships,” Furr says. This would all end up an interesting business-school case if whiplash leadership were guaranteed to end when everyone is vaccinated. But experts say it won’t. The pressure to make quarterly numbers, beat rivals, change corporate cultures, or take on social issues is going to force leaders to make more decisions than ever, and inevitably some are going to contradict one another. “Leadership is a human endeavor, yet the pace is inhuman. The big question is, how do you deal with it?” says Kevin Cashman, global coleader of CEO and executive leader development at Korn Ferry.

Read the full Magazine

Whiplash-Free Decisions

How leaders can change their minds without losing credibility.

A Guide to

Whiplash Leadership

Be open-minded and seek out counterpoints.

Ask for help

Is the new direction based on new data from trusted sources? The new decision must be critical to pursuing the organization’s purpose and goals.

Answer “are you sure?”

Be as clear and articulate as possible. Explain the rationale and data behind the new course.

Explain it all

A course correction is going to cause hardship for many. Reassure stakeholders that the new decision was not made lightly, and offer them your support.

Show empathy

Map out how the new direction will help the organization achieve its goals, in both the short and the long term.

Show what success will look like

Two Years of Hard Decisions

Looking Back:

Scramble to find manufacturers as Chinese factories shut down.

January 2020

Scramble to find manufacturers as European factories shut down.

February 2020

Send everyone home from US offices; make decisions on when they can come back.

March 2020

Determine how to make essential businesses safe; revisit return-to-office issue for everyone else.

April 2020

Due to the economic downturn, consider layoffs, pay cuts, losing profits, or a combination.

May 2020

Several US states reverse or postpone plans to reopen their economies.

July 2020

Sometimes leaders have no choice but to unwind a decision. Early in the pandemic, executives at Discover Financial Services made a commitment to make decisions based on guidance recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says Todd Podell, Discover’s chief procurement and corporate services officer. But when the guidance changed, so did Discover’s decisions, even if it caused the company to change course. “There were lots of times where we thought, ‘Maybe we want to go this way or that way,’” Podell says. “But if you don’t make decisions based on those north stars, that sometimes is more troubling for employees.” What’s more, plenty of evidence shows that leaders must be willing to change their minds. For instance, according to Korn Ferry research, agility and flexibility are among the most important characteristics leaders must have to succeed now and in the future. It’s how executives make and convey their decisions that could use a review.

Leaders need to keep their minds open when weighing options, actively listening to counterarguments and stress testing their ideas. Leaders must elevate based on principles and purpose, Cashman says, not through elevation of ego. This type of decision making, if done consistently, will build credibility with stakeholders, according to Andersson’s research. So even when a manager has to backtrack on an earlier decision, they can maintain their credibility and reputation. Admitting that a prior decision was a mistake, or explaining why it is no longer relevant, can help stakeholders get past any whiplash, Cashman says. Importantly, even in the midst of stressful, fast-paced moments, leaders should slow down their decision-making process. That might sound counterintuitive, but taking a moment to stop, reflect, consider, and deliberate before taking action can save a leader from making a decision that they’ll have to unwind later. “Elite athletes can slow the game down and play calmly, even when everything is on the line; leaders must do the same,” Cashman says.

Scrap fall return-to-office plans; reschedule for six months later.

September 2020

Consider hybrid work schedules full-time.

January 2021

Offer employees incentives to get vaccinated.

April 2021

Postpone the return again.

August 2021

Find alternate transport routes as US and Chinese ports face massive backlogs.

July 2021

Consider mandating that employees and new workers get vaccinated.

September 2021

Restore old jobs and pay?

December 2020

This back-and-forth has a name in consultant circles—it’s called whiplash leadership, defined as a leader’s rapid series of decisions that often send entry-level employees, senior executives, institutional shareholders, die-hard customers, and every other form of stakeholder scrambling. Of course, a once-in-a century pandemic spurred much of this. The C-suite was forced to act quickly; managers needed to improvise on the spot. No one—not even the greatest medical minds—could predict the pace of infections or the appearance of new variants. And yet some experts say it’s becoming apparent that the whiplash seen since early 2020 wasn’t all caused by a virus. Indeed, leaders were already being asked to quicken their speed of decision making, whether in response to a local crisis, a new rival, agitated activist investors, or some other calamity. Senior leaders have institutionalized the idea that they have to do something, even if that something goes against a recently made choice. The problem is that this type of decision making has already taken a toll on business operations, employee morale, and leadership credibility. Even as the pandemic fades, experts say leaders will have to rethink how they make and communicate their biggest choices. “If you’re changing all the time, then that’s a sign of waffling,” says Al Pittampalli, author of Persuadable: How Great Leaders Change Their Minds to Change the World.

And so it went, until another wave of decisions came in the fall of 2020. This centered around word that a vaccine was coming soon and all would return to normal quickly. Workers were told to prepare to come back to the office. Budgets were set with high expectations. But by December, many leaders were forced to change their tunes again: “Stay working at home for now.” Then, just as a “new normal” appeared to approach in spring, the delta variant of the virus showed up, and leaders shuffled the deck again. Back-to-office plans were pushed back. Remote work options were granted, then denied, then granted again. Vaccination suggestions became vaccination mandates. Supply-chain orders made during the early parts of the pandemic were countermanded.