I recently came across a blog by the CEO of a small nonprofit, praising the organizational changes she implemented during some recent challenging and unsettling times, and making the case that uncertainty creates excellent opportunities for organizational change. At first glance, the argument seemed reasonable, but as I read it again, something didn’t seem right.
I reflected on my time in graduate school while earning my M.A. in Organizational Communication, and I began to wonder… “Is that really the right strategy for an organization?”
There’s an increasing trend to reframe every disruption as an opportunity. Crisis, we’re told, breeds innovation. Uncertainty becomes a gift. However, this narrative, though polished and popular, can be misleading and even dangerous when it lacks strategic depth and maturity. While uncertainty has become the rallying cry of modern leadership discourse, it’s worth asking whether this relentless pursuit of “opportunity in chaos” truly serves the organization or simply bolsters a leader’s ego to be seen as bold and visionary.
The blog I read exemplifies the latter.
Her message was clear: disruption should be welcomed, even celebrated. However, the assumptions behind that conclusion may reveal more about her inexperience than about effective leadership.
Flexibility Without Strategy Is Risk, Not Innovation
The blog begins by praising the organization’s shift to remote and hybrid work, presenting it as evidence of forward-thinking leadership. However, this overlooks a growing body of evidence indicating that remote-first models carry long-term risks when implemented without structure.
Culture can erode. Mentorship diminishes. Collaboration becomes fragmented. Flexibility without guardrails results in inconsistency and blurred accountability. These aren’t “future of work” wins; they’re liabilities in disguise. Celebrating flexibility as a one-size-fits-all solution, without acknowledging the challenges or incorporating strategic foresight, is not innovation. It’s shortsightedness disguised as progress.
Not All Pivots Are Strategic
Another example cited by the CEO is the loss of a major philanthropic partner, framed not as a crisis, but as a “catalyst for growth.” The organization responded by restructuring programs and “finding new efficiencies.” However, this glosses over more serious questions:
- Why was the organization so dependent on a single funder?
- What systems failed to anticipate or buffer against this shift?
- Was there a contingency plan in place?
- Were these changes truly strategic, or merely reactive?
- And were the original programs flawed—or just financially demanding?
Redesigning services out of financial necessity is not the same as visionary change. When survival decisions are framed as success stories, it dilutes accountability and risks misleading stakeholders. That’s not leadership; it’s damage control disguised as innovation.
A Misguided Approach to Leading People Through Change
Most troubling is the CEO’s framework for managing staff during disruptions. She divides employees into three groups: early adopters, skeptics, and a “quiet middle.” What’s her approach?
- Invest in the hand-raisers.
- Ignore the skeptics.
- Hope the rest will eventually fall in line.
That is just the wrong approach.
However, “skeptics” often play a vital role in organizational health. They ask tough questions, identify blind spots, and challenge groupthink. The “quiet middle” isn’t passive—they’re processing, observing, and often become the most dependable champions when meaningfully engaged.
Dismissing these voices doesn’t show leadership, it exposes a lack of it. Real leaders know how to listen across the spectrum, not just to the most eager.
Real Leadership Demands Discernment, Not Speed
There’s a difference between being adaptive and being reactive. The CEO’s blog seems to value movement over meaning and action over insight. However, true leadership, especially in uncertain times, demands something more: patience, clarity, and the wisdom to not ask, “Can we change?” but “Should we change?”
Not all disruptions deserve applause. Not every pivot signifies progress. And not every decision made in a crisis will withstand the test of time.
Progress Isn’t Always the Opposite of Stability
In turbulent times, the strongest leaders aren’t necessarily those who move the fastest. Instead, they are the ones who pause, evaluate, and protect what’s working, while thoughtfully evolving what isn’t. They listen beyond just the loudest voices. They resist the allure of trend-driven change and value sustainability over splash.
The nonprofit CEO’s blog may come across as confident, but its content reveals a lack of experienced perspective. Strategic leadership isn’t measured by the speed of change; it’s defined by the discernment of when to refrain from changing.
Sometimes, uncertainty doesn’t call for reinvention. It calls for institutional memory, steadiness, and a deeper kind of courage—one that resists the pursuit of novelty and instead safeguards the integrity of what works.
That’s the leadership this moment demands: less reactive optimism, more seasoned discernment.