When the CEO Becomes the Biggest Risk
When decisions at the top go wrong, the consequences can reach those who had little say in making them.
Introduction — While Everyone Else Is Managing the Crisis
Imagine a company facing a serious incident.
The technical team investigates what happened. The legal department assesses potential liabilities. The communications team reviews what can be disclosed, while customer support prepares to respond to questions and concerns.
Different teams work to contain the damage. Facts are checked, statements are reviewed, and communication is coordinated.
Then the CEO acts on their own judgment.
Perhaps it is an unexpected public statement. Perhaps it is a decision made without consulting the people responsible for managing the situation.
Suddenly, the organization may have another problem to manage.
The CEO may have no malicious intentions. The action may even come from a genuine desire to protect the company or reassure its customers.
But good intentions do not necessarily make a decision appropriate.
Companies routinely require employees to follow rules, approval processes, and communication policies.
How far do those requirements extend to the person at the very top?
And when the person responsible for managing corporate risk becomes a source of risk, does the organization have the ability to correct the problem?
Chapter 1 — Authority Amplifies Consequences
Companies generally define the authority associated with different roles.
An employee may need approval before changing an important contract, making a public statement on behalf of the company, or modifying a critical system.
These procedures do not necessarily exist because employees cannot be trusted. They also exist because an individual decision can have consequences for the entire organization.
A CEO operates with a different level of authority.
Major investments, executive appointments, business strategies, and responses to serious crises may all depend on decisions made at the top.
Public communication is no exception.
A statement made by an ordinary employee may be regarded as a personal opinion. A similar statement made by the CEO may be interpreted as reflecting the company’s official position.
Even when the CEO believes they are speaking personally, customers, investors, and the public may not make that distinction.
Of course, executives are human.
They cannot make every decision correctly, nor can they predict every consequence.
They are also expected to make difficult decisions when others cannot.
During a crisis, information may be incomplete. Experts may disagree. Waiting for certainty may not be an option.
This is one reason executives are given substantial discretion.
But the need for discretion does not eliminate the need for scrutiny.
The problem is not that a CEO can make mistakes. It is whether the CEO and the organization understand how far those mistakes may reach — and whether they can respond when something goes wrong.
Chapter 2 — Who Do the Rules Apply To?
Most companies have policies governing compliance, confidential information, and public communication.
Employees attend training sessions. They receive instructions about handling sensitive information, communicating with customers, and obtaining approval before taking certain actions.
Important contracts and system changes may require multiple levels of authorization.
These procedures are intended to protect the organization.
Yet the CEO may not be subject to the same approval processes as an ordinary employee.
That is not necessarily a flaw.
Executives need the authority to make decisions that cannot reasonably be delegated or delayed.
The question is what happens when that authority is exercised in a way that creates serious risks.
If an employee violates company policy, a supervisor or human resources department may intervene.
If a manager makes an inappropriate decision, someone higher in the organization may review it.
But what happens when the person at the top makes the questionable decision?
Who can identify the problem?
Who can challenge the decision?
And who has the authority to demand a correction?
The answer cannot simply be that the CEO should follow exactly the same procedures as everyone else.
The responsibilities and authority of different roles are not identical.
However, different authority does not mean freedom from accountability.
A CEO may be authorized to make decisions without going through the approval procedures required of other employees. But those decisions should not be beyond review.
Having the authority to make a decision is not the same as having the right to avoid scrutiny of that decision.
Chapter 3 — Who Can Stop the CEO?
Corporate governance provides mechanisms for overseeing executive decisions.
Depending on the company and its legal structure, boards of directors, independent directors, audit committees, other oversight bodies, and shareholders may all play a role.
The specific powers of these bodies vary across jurisdictions, but the underlying question remains the same: can executive decisions be meaningfully challenged?
The existence of a governance structure does not guarantee that it will work effectively.
Consider a company led by a founder who has spent decades building a successful business.
The founder may have earned considerable trust through years of successful leadership.
That history can be a valuable asset.
It can also make disagreement difficult.
A long record of success may create an environment in which questioning the leader becomes more difficult.
This does not mean founder-led companies are inherently poorly governed.
Strong leadership can support rapid decision-making, organizational consistency, and long-term strategic planning.
The problem arises when the organization loses the ability to challenge or correct the leader.
Imagine a situation in which the board is unwilling or unable to provide effective oversight.
Senior employees recognize a problem but hesitate to raise objections.
Shareholders express concerns, yet those concerns produce little meaningful change.
Under such circumstances, questionable decisions may remain uncorrected.
The consequences may accumulate until customers lose confidence, business partners reconsider their relationships, or financial pressures become impossible to ignore.
Other mechanisms, including legal action or regulatory intervention, may still provide ways to address the problem.
But if meaningful change comes only after the business itself has suffered serious damage, the cost of correction may be extraordinarily high.
Corporate governance is not merely about placing limits on executive authority.
It is also a way to protect a company from the consequences of executive decisions that turn out to be wrong.
And when those safeguards fail, the consequences do not remain confined to the executive office.
Chapter 4 — The People Who Answer the Phones
When an executive decision creates a problem, who deals with the aftermath?
Not necessarily the executive who made the decision.
A customer support representative may answer the calls.
A salesperson may visit an angry client.
An engineer may spend days trying to repair the damage.
Legal and communications teams may have to develop explanations and coordinate the company’s response.
Of course, dealing with customers and solving operational problems are legitimate parts of these employees’ jobs.
A CEO cannot personally handle every complaint or technical incident.
Delegation is necessary.
The problem begins when employees are expected to manage the consequences of executive decisions without sufficient information, authority, or support.
Customers demand explanations.
They have every reason to expect a company to explain what went wrong.
But the employee answering the question may have had no involvement in the original decision.
That employee may have no authority to reverse it.
Get fmi A.’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
They may not be permitted to correct the CEO’s public statement or offer commitments beyond an approved response.
Nevertheless, they are the person facing the customer.
Sometimes that means dealing with intense criticism, repeated complaints, or demands they have no power to satisfy.
A company’s obligation to explain its actions does not mean an individual employee should be expected to absorb unlimited hostility.
There is another, less visible problem.
The harder employees work to contain the consequences, the longer an underlying management problem may remain unaddressed.
Customer support keeps answering calls.
Engineers continue resolving incidents.
Sales teams maintain relationships with increasingly frustrated clients.
The company appears to be functioning.
But operational continuity is not proof that the underlying problem has been resolved.
A functioning support team can temporarily absorb the effects of a questionable executive decision.
It cannot necessarily correct that decision.
The fact that employees are successfully managing a problem does not mean management has successfully solved it.
Chapter 5 — When Governance Fails, Who Pays the Price?
A poor executive decision does not automatically lead to a corporate crisis.
Companies can recognize mistakes, reverse decisions, and limit the damage.
The ability to do so is itself an important feature of effective governance.
However, when problems are recognized but left unresolved, the consequences may grow.
Customers may lose confidence.
Business partners may reconsider their contracts.
Revenue may decline.
The company may need to restructure its operations, reduce costs, or eliminate positions.
In extreme circumstances, the survival of the business itself may be threatened.
Executives are not necessarily protected from these outcomes.
They may lose their positions, compensation, investments, professional reputations, or substantial personal wealth.
It would be inaccurate to suggest that executives always escape the consequences of their decisions.
Nevertheless, there is an important imbalance worth examining.
Employees who had little influence over the original decision may also suffer serious consequences.
Their income may be reduced.
Their jobs may disappear.
They may be forced to change careers or abandon career plans they spent years building.
They may have followed every relevant policy and performed their responsibilities diligently.
Yet those actions alone cannot guarantee protection from the consequences of decisions made elsewhere in the organization.
When executive decisions go wrong, the consequences can extend far beyond the executives who made them — sometimes falling hardest on employees who had little power to influence those decisions.
The issue is not whose losses are always greater.
It is that decision-making authority and exposure to the consequences are not necessarily proportional.
Employees may have limited influence over strategic decisions.
Yet they may have little choice but to live with the results.
This is one reason corporate governance matters beyond the boardroom.
Beyond overseeing executives, effective governance can also help reduce avoidable harm to employees and other stakeholders.
Chapter 6 — Responsibility Is Not a Job Title
Executives are given substantial authority because running a company requires difficult decisions.
Information may be incomplete. Time may be limited. Different stakeholders may have competing interests.
An outcome that benefits one group may impose costs on another.
No executive can satisfy everyone or eliminate every risk.
It would therefore be unreasonable to define responsible leadership as never making a mistake.
Nor should executive responsibility be reduced to apologizing or resigning after something goes wrong.
Responsibility also exists before a decision is made.
It includes the willingness to examine assumptions, listen to expert advice, and consider objections.
It means accepting that even a well-intentioned decision may be mistaken.
It also means allowing decisions to be reviewed and corrected.
When an emergency requires an executive to depart from an ordinary procedure, that may be justified.
But the reasoning behind the decision and its consequences should still be open to examination.
When a company establishes procedures for managing public communication during a crisis, executives should recognize the importance of those procedures in their own conduct as well.
And when a decision causes problems, responsibility includes ensuring that the people dealing with its consequences receive adequate support.
Customer-facing employees need reliable information and clear guidance.
Technical teams need sufficient resources and appropriate authority.
Employees facing unreasonable demands or personal hostility need organizational protection.
Responsible leadership does not mean guaranteeing that no one will suffer a loss. It means taking reasonable steps to limit avoidable harm and ensuring that employees are not left to absorb the consequences without adequate support.
If the CEO’s own decision contributed to the problem, the responsibility for that decision should not simply be transferred to the employees assigned to resolve it.
None of this means executives must perform every operational task themselves.
Delegating work is not the same as abandoning responsibility.
A CEO can entrust a department with managing a crisis while remaining accountable for the decisions that created or shaped it.
Executive responsibility is not merely about accepting the consequences of a decision. It is also about taking reasonable steps to prevent those consequences from being unfairly imposed on others.
This responsibility does not suddenly appear when something goes wrong.
It exists before the decision is made.
Conclusion — Who Will Live With the Consequences?
A CEO cannot predict every outcome or prevent every failure.
But a CEO can recognize that the consequences of a decision may extend far beyond the person who made it.
Some of those consequences may be carried by employees who had no part in the decision itself.
They may be the ones explaining the situation to customers, restoring damaged operations, or facing uncertainty about their jobs and livelihoods.
That is why responsible leadership requires more than confidence in one’s own judgment.
It requires the willingness to question decisions, accept oversight, and recognize the people who may bear the consequences.
Leadership is not merely about having the authority to make decisions.
It is also about understanding who may have to live with their consequences.
And before making an important decision, perhaps every CEO should ask one more question:
If I am wrong, who will have to live with the consequences — and what will I do to protect them?
Sources & Notes
The following references provide background on corporate governance, board oversight, executive accountability, and risk management. The organizational scenarios discussed in this essay are illustrative and should not be understood as findings about any particular company.
1. OECD (2023). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance 2023.
The principles describe the responsibilities of boards, oversight of management, risk governance, and the consideration of stakeholder interests.
2. Financial Reporting Council (2024). The UK Corporate Governance Code.
The Code addresses board leadership, accountability, risk management, internal controls, and the responsibilities of corporate boards.
3. Financial Reporting Council. Corporate Governance Code Guidance.
Supporting guidance on the practical application of corporate governance principles, including board effectiveness, risk management, and internal control arrangements.
