Navigating the Era of Madness

Imagine being a leader in 1968.

War. Political assassinations. Civil unrest. Soviet tanks entering Czechoslovakia.

Established institutions under pressure. A widening generational divide. Populations deeply divided over what should happen next. The Vietnam War was eroding public trust. The assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy intensified an already fractured political climate. Protest and unrest filled streets from Paris to Chicago.

Television brought much of it directly into people’s homes, accelerating the pressure on institutions and those leading them.

Leaders had to distinguish legitimate public anger from destabilization. Short-term noise from structural change. Principled restraint from dangerous indecision.

Different era. Different crises. But a familiar leadership problem confronts us today: how do you provide direction, preserve legitimacy and make sound decisions when certainty has disappeared and every choice risks deepening division?

Today, we’re living through another period in which assumptions have short lives. Agreements change. Alliances are tested. Technology moves faster than institutions. Positions that looked certain six months ago can suddenly become negotiable.

And that changes the role of communication.

In stable times, communication explains decisions but in turbulent times, communication becomes part of the decision-making infrastructure itself.

The information a leader receives shapes their decisions and the higher they rise, the more filtered reality becomes

Briefings, advisers, dashboards, intelligence, media—and increasingly AI—all stand between the leader and raw information. When the external environment becomes unstable, the quality of that information becomes a strategic asset.

With this in mind, three questions become critical for any leader to consider while navigating such an environment.

What do we know? In fast-moving situations, leaders must distinguish facts from opinions and opinions from guesses. Things need to be slowed down and emotions kept in check.

What must remain open? Public overcommitment is risky. Leaders must set direction while leaving room to adapt. Always have enough room for manoeuvring.

Who can tell me I’m wrong? The most critical question: When pressure mounts, do you widen your circle or let it shrink? Closed loops create echo chambers, where bad news gets blocked, and decisions go unchallenged.

History shows what happens when leaders surround themselves with people who confirm rather than challenge.

Bad information leads to bad judgment.

The great leadership skill in turbulent times isn’t prediction, It’s navigation.

Knowing what you know. Knowing what you don’t. Preserving enough room to change course. Communicating enough certainty for people to move without manufacturing certainty that just doesn’t exist.