Who Speaks When It Counts? Leadership in an Age of Crisis
Who Speaks When It Counts? Leadership in an Age of Crisis
In times of social, economic, and political turmoil, the question of leadership becomes both relevant and existential. Who leads, how they lead, and whether they are willing to speak up when it matters, determine the fate of institutions.
This essay provides a clear framework for understanding the leadership dynamics of three major sectors under pressure: business, academia, and science.
Each showcases a distinct leadership style—raising the alarm, drawing a line in the sand, or advocating for mission—shaped by their unique structures, incentives, and time horizons. What emerges is not merely a snapshot of who has spoken up during a crisis, but a playbook for how leadership functions—and what we should expect from each camp moving forward.
I. Business: Raising the Alarm
Corporate leaders have been the first to speak for good reason: they are evaluated more quickly than any other institutional leaders. Quarterly earnings, shareholder expectations, and competitive positioning leave little room for silence.
In April 2025, as a renewed wave of Trump-era tariffs triggered market sell-offs and inflation fears, prominent CEOs from across the political spectrum raised alarms. Ken Griffin of Citadel called the tariffs a "huge policy mistake" that would harm American families. Bill Ackman, a Trump supporter in 2024, warned of a “self-induced, economic nuclear winter.” Bahram Akradi, Farooq Kathwari, Jamie Dimon, and even Elon Musk joined in the outcry.
This type of leadership emphasizes results over principles—specifically maintaining operational stability and managing financial outcomes. Performance is evaluated in real time. Silence poses a risk, while speaking out is regarded as an act of fiduciary responsibility.
As Peter Drucker emphasized, leadership in business is about doing the right thing—but it must always be paired with execution and accountability as non-negotiable. These firms are often recognized in frameworks such as the Management Top 250, an annual ranking produced by the Drucker Institute and published in The Wall Street Journal.
The ranking evaluates companies across five key dimensions: customer satisfaction, employee engagement and development, innovation, social responsibility, and financial strength. Companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Pfizer lead the list for their financial performance, overall institutional competence, and ability to navigate complexity.
Unsurprisingly, many of these firms are often the first to raise alarms when policies jeopardize their operations or stakeholder trust. Similarly, those ranked highly for adaptive capacity and governance tend to be the first to push back when harmful policies threaten their bottom line.
II. Academia: Drawing a Line in the Sand
University leaders may respond more slowly; however, when they do act, their actions have a greater impact. Unlike corporations, universities operate on longer timelines.
Their success is measured in decades, not quarters. When they act, they do so to protect not only their balance sheets but also their autonomy and legitimacy. The Trump administration’s attempt to exert ideological control—through funding freezes, demands for “viewpoint diversity,” and intrusive audits—forced universities to bend or resist?
At Columbia, leaders initially pursued a path of compliance. However, this led to heightened scrutiny, internal tensions, and reactions from both ideological sides. Professor Matthew Connelly later described the demoralization that followed. “Where were our allies?” he asked, as Columbia found itself abandoned by its academic peers.
Harvard took a different approach. President Alan Garber refused the administration's terms when confronted with nearly $9 billion in frozen federal funding. “Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle,” he declared. As former federal judge J. Michael Luttig put it, the move was “of momentous significance.” Harvard didn’t merely raise the alarm—it drew a line in the sand.
Its leadership was strategic, measured, and clear-eyed: protecting institutional independence rather than merely public image. This does not suggest that these decisions are easy. Within universities, leadership often involves navigating tensions between deeply held academic values and external political or financial pressures. The resulting deliberations may appear slow from the outside, but they often reflect a commitment to principle over expediency.
III. Science: Advocating for Mission
Scientific institutions, meanwhile, have largely remained silent. Their leadership has remained narrowly focused on preserving the ability to fulfill their core mission. They only speak out when policy changes interfere with that mission, whether through budget cuts, politicization of research, or administrative chaos.
In a joint interview, Marcia McNutt (National Academy of Sciences) and Michael Crow (Arizona State University) expressed serious concerns. McNutt warned of “chaos” caused by diminished federal science agencies. Crow emphasized that science's historic role was being undermined as a pillar of national defense, prosperity, and innovation.
Their leadership was not performative; it was precise. Like CEOs, they speak when execution is jeopardized, but, like universities, their commitment is to legacy and public trust. Together, these examples reveal a deeper pattern that helps us understand what leadership looks like under pressure.
What We Learn from Leadership Under Pressure
As someone who works at a university, I’ve witnessed firsthand the complexity of balancing institutional responsibility with public expectations. The stakes are high, and decisions are rarely simple.
These three archetypes—raising the alarm, drawing a line in the sand, and advocating for mission—provide a roadmap for how institutions lead when confronted with challenges. They also offer a framework for understanding what to expect next.
Expect speed, clarity, and a focus on outcomes from the business. Leadership is responsive, data-driven, and outspoken when financial interests are at stake.
From academia: Expect slower, more principled stances. Universities may not always respond swiftly, but when they do, it is often to protect the lasting legitimacy of knowledge itself.
From science: anticipate disciplined advocacy. These leaders respond when core imperatives—truth-seeking, discovery, and societal benefit—are obstructed.
All three forms of leadership are crucial. Each addresses different threats over various timelines. However, what unites them—at their best—is the courage to act, the ability to communicate, and a refusal to compromise the missions they serve.
As Drucker might put it, leadership is not about making noise; it’s about making good on purpose. The question is not just “Who spoke up?” but “Who delivered when it counted?” For every institution, the next test is already on the horizon.
As Tom Peters has long argued, “Execution is strategy.” His call for a bias toward action, a deep attention to people, and visible, emotionally intelligent leadership reinforces what we see across these archetypes. In business, speed and decisiveness define credibility.
In academia, clarity of values and a willingness to take principled stands ensure long-term legitimacy. In science, disciplined focus and mission-aligned advocacy safeguard the integrity of inquiry. Peters reminds us that leadership isn’t just about vision—it’s about delivering results, building trust, and energizing people to act. The most effective institutions do more than discuss values—they actively implement them.
In his interview with The Paris Review, Robert Caro reflected, “You have to ask yourself, Are you making the reader see the scene? And that means, Can you see the scene?” This insight emphasizes the importance of leaders acting decisively and thoroughly understanding the context and implications of their actions.
Just as Caro immerses himself in the minutiae of his subjects' lives to portray them authentically, effective institutional leaders must explore the complexities of their organizations and the crises they confront. Such depth ensures that their decisions are rooted in a comprehensive understanding, fostering trust and resilience within their institutions.
As John F. Kennedy wrote in *Profiles in Courage*, “A man does what he must—in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures—and that is the basis of all human morality.”
Though he spoke of senators, the lesson applies across institutions today. Whether a CEO defies market orthodoxy, a university president defends academic independence, or a scientist protects the integrity of inquiry, the courage to act under pressure remains the true measure of leadership.
As Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” This principle, as relevant now as it was then, remains the true north of institutional leadership.
Today’s environment may be faster, more fractured, and more publicly scrutinized, but the fundamental challenge remains the same: to speak—and act—when it truly matters.