CEOs who cause a crisis for their organizations because of what they did or how they did it —or failed to do and say—run the risk of being held accountable by stakeholders, boards of directors, and others. When and how senior executives are held accountable could cause, extend, or prevent other crisis situations.gettyThe latest test of executive accountability is FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who recently supported a plan to raise capital from private investors in a new subsidiary of the organization. The backlash to the proposal was so strong and swift that it was quickly dropped, which was followed by calls for accountability and loss of support for his re-election to the post next year, according to the BBC. On Wednesday, FIFA issued an apology to its members over what it called “errors” in the handling the controversial plan “but said its leaders reaffirmed their support for Gianni Infantino to remain as president, despite growing criticism and calls for his removal from world leaders and soccer legends,” Forbes reported. Norwegian Football Federation president Lise Klaveness said on Friday that Infantino should resign. “We decided that there is no trust in Infantino now,” she told The Guardian. “We have been worried consistently and there has been one more step in a worrying direction every year, every part of the year. The trust is now gone for us, there is no way back for Infantino,” Klaveness said.The continuing crisis in the sports world is a reminder for business executives that their tenures could be cut short because of how their actions or words created a crisis—or made one worse. “Customers and shareholders increasingly demand swift action as crises unfold—and what they view as authentic accountability, rather than carefully crafted corporate messaging after the fact,” James Christopher, founder and CEO of James Christopher Communications, told me in an email message.The danger of responding too fast or too slow Speed and communication are important considerations when holding senior business leaders responsible for a crisis. They “should be held accountable as soon as there is quantifiable evidence of leadership failure, with meaningful action occurring alongside public communications. At the same time, companies must avoid blame-shifting or reflexively faulting leadership before all the facts come to light,” Christopher advised.MORE FOR YOUHaving rock-solid evidence of a CEO’s failure or missteps is crucial but can be a balancing act. That’s because “boards of directors that move too quickly after a crisis can appear to be searching for a scapegoat. But waiting too long to act after the crisis has been publicized can extend the crisis and further damage the credibility of and trust in the organization,” he pointed out.Determining if and when a CEO should lose their job requires boards to distinguish between various kinds of leadership failures. The nature of the CEO’s actions should help boards determine what happens to the executive. It’s important to remember that a failed or poor business decision is not necessarily the same as an ethical or moral lapse, an effort to cover up information, or to deliberately violate their organization’s policies and code of ethics. Recognizing those distinctions and red lines can help boards avoid a cookie-cutter approach of treating every crisis—and every company leader—the same way. The response should be carefully considered and customized to reflect not only the damage that was done, but why it happened and how the executive responded.Determining accountabilityWhile the extent of damage caused by a CEO’s decision matters, “it is also important to recognize the difference between honest mistakes and dishonesty/willful violations, such as disregarding the code of conduct,” Ludmila N. Praslova, a professor of organizational psychology at Vanguard University of Southern California, told me in an email message.Then-Nestle CEO Laurent Freixe speaks during a general shareholders meeting of Swiss food giant Nestle in Ecublens, near Lausanne, on April 16, 2025. (Photo by GABRIEL MONNET / AFP) (Photo by GABRIEL MONNET/AFP via Getty Images)AFP via Getty ImagesShe pointed to two headline-making CEO departures: The resignation of Andy Byron at Astronomer who was caught on a kiss cam at a Coldplay concert embracing the company’s chief people officer. And when Nestlé fired Laurent Freixe last September after an investigation found that the executive had failed to disclose a romantic relationship with a subordinate, which violated the company’s code of conduct. Praslova said the incidents are reminders of the consequences executives can face when their behavior raises questions about their honesty, judgment, and compliance with corporate policies.The impact of strategic and operational failures can be more difficult to ascertain. Boards should carefully consider the seriousness and impact of the mistake, if any warning or danger signs were ignored, the CEO’s record of accomplishments to date, and the chances that the same kind of crisis will be repeated. “If the poor decision relates to an ethical lapse or other breach of behavioral norms, CEOs should be held accountable in the same way all their employees would. The company rules apply to them just like they apply to everyone else. And that means they should be subject to disciplinary action and at risk of being fired just like everyone else,” James Lowry, CEO of Pathwise, a career guidance company, pointed out in an email interview with me.On the other hand, “If the poor decision is more of a strategic or operational decision that went badly, you would need to consider the implications of that relative to everything else that individual brings to the table. Those are more nuanced situations, obviously,” he counseled.Creating a culture that encourages accountability CEOs should be held accountable not only for their own mistakes, but also for whether they created and protected a workplace culture where problems can be identified and corrected, Andrew Healey, a resilience and leadership coach and operations consultant, told me in an email message.Former Chief Executive of KPMG Andrew Yates appears in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services at Parliament House on June 19, 2026 in Canberra, Australia. (Photo by Hilary Wardhaugh/Getty Images)Getty ImagesHe pointed to KPMG Australia’s Andrew Yates, who resigned in May. Although Yates was not personally implicated in the alleged misuse of confidential client information, the firm acknowledged that its handling of a whistleblower and its initial investigation "fell short of the firm’s expectations, those of the whistleblower and ​the broader community,” the firm said in a statement, according to Reuters. “It is clear that in this case we have let ourselves down and I take ​accountability," Yates said in the same statement.According to Healey, boards increasingly view the mishandling of internal warnings—not only the underlying misconduct—as legitimate grounds for holding CEOs accountable. Such failures can indicate a company culture where problems are contained or covered up instead of brought to light and dealt with.The bottom line for boards of directors is that accountability should be neither automatic nor delayed. It should be based on the facts, the executive’s conduct, the damage to the organization, and whether the CEO can restore the confidence and trust that were lost. Otherwise, a failure to be accountable could cause another type of crisis for companies.The controversy raises a broader question: When should CEOs be held accountable for poor decisions that trigger a crisis?—-CEOs should be held accountable 100% of the time. Ultimately, it is their vision that succeeds or fails. Julie Masino tenure at Cracker Barrel is a recent brand / PR crisis example. It may take years for the company to regain the standing it once had with its loyal customers in the public.The upcoming crisis that I don't foresee many anticipating is the number of CEOs who've laid off a substantial part of their workforce with the expectation and anticipation that they could all be replaced by AI. Klarna is one business who has already regretted this decision.Sent from:Raleigh, North Carolina, United States Select for downloadCollapseProposed sources:Ryan McCormick (see profile)Co-Founder & Media Relations Specialist at Goldman McCormick Public Relations—-Accidents that are rooted in mistakes by leadership should make CEOs rightfully lose their jobs. Blame should never be the goal. The goal is to reflect on how/if the organization ignored the signs, assessed or took into consideration the risks, and considered (or ignored) the ethical values of the organization. Leaders should be held especially accountable if the decision causes injury to employees, clients, and stakeholders.The most successful organizations have incorporated accountability at all levels and in advance. That sentiment is reflected in their governance, oversight, and reporting mechanisms. Organizations have realized leadership is obligated to speak to the breakdown, justify their actions and provide stakeholders with a remedy. Breakdowns are breathed upon by silence.The lack of accountability demonstrated by CEOs has resulted in countless corporate overhauls. Examples include scandals resulting from operational malice, safety concerns (Boeing), breakdowns of governance and oversight, failures of strategy and confidence erosion (Telsa), to name just a few. Most reflect on the swiftness and transparency of the response and if it is done with the clear intent of restoring confidence in the organization.Lost jobs are not the singular goal of accountability mechanisms, to a large extent. The goal should be to create a system that addresses the failure in a way that engenders the confidence to prevent it from occurring again. The strongest leaders realize trust is gained before a crisis, and lost during a crisis.Many Thanks,Baruch LabunskiRank Secure—-My name is Justin Goldsberry; I am the CEO & Founder of Goldsberry Management Group. I bring a cross-sector background spanning executive leadership, business, education, entrepreneurship, mentoring, coaching, communications (including marketing and PR), public policy, and beyond.I am also an incoming J.D. student at Seton Hall University School of Law.Pitch:Being a CEO doesn't just make you the face of the company—it makes you the voice of it. That's why every CEO should be trained in strategic communications. Bad decisions happen. Cover-ups, silence, dishonesty, excuses, a lack of transparency and repeated occurrences are what destroy trust for both, internal and external stakeholders.For example, in 2024, Dave Calhoun, CEO of Boeing, apologized and took accountability for aircraft safety failures. That was the right first step; however, apologies are not always enough when they are not followed by improved behavior or results. After repeated safety failures, Dave Calhoun eventually stepped down as CEO due to pressure from the board, customers, congress, and the victims’ families.If a CEO repeatedly shows poor judgment, refuses to take accountability, does not improve processes or systems to avoid recurring offenses—the board has to step in through increased oversight, a performance improvement plan, executive coaching, or, when necessary, even a leadership or a CEO change.Thanks for considering my pitch.With warm regards,Justin GoldsberrySent from:Piscataway, New Jersey, United States Select for downloadCollapseProposed sources:Justin Goldsberry (s—-I’m Geniece R. Webb, leadership clarity consultant, former educator, and founder of RISE by Oasis Consulting. I am also the author of The Exit Interview They Never Saw Coming, a book that examines how leadership failures, cultural breakdowns, and system‑level harm quietly shape employee behavior and organizational outcomes. My work focuses on diagnosing the invisible patterns that create disengagement, burnout, and crisis conditions inside companies, using current data from Gallup, Deloitte, Gartner, and Forbes.Expert Commentary on CEO AccountabilityCEOs should be held accountable the moment their decisions create system‑level harm, not after the crisis has already reshaped the narrative. Accountability is not about punishment. It is about clarity, ownership, and protecting trust inside the organization.When CEOs take responsibility early, they stabilize the culture.When they delay, they deepen the crisis.Recent examples illustrate this clearly:Southwest Airlines (2022–2023)The operational meltdown that canceled nearly 17,000 flights was caused by outdated scheduling systems that unions had warned about for years. CEO Bob Jordan publicly stated, “Ultimately, this stops with me,” and commissioned a third‑party operational review. This is accountable leadership: ownership paired with corrective action.Boeing (2024 door‑plug incident)The company’s slow and fragmented response intensified public distrust and regulatory scrutiny. Boeing’s crisis demonstrates how delayed clarity from leadership magnifies reputational damage and signals internal dysfunction.Meta / Facebook (Cambridge Analytica)The company’s defensive posture and delayed transparency resulted in global backlash, congressional hearings, and long-term trust erosion. Crisis research consistently shows that when leaders avoid accountability, the organization loses control of the narrative.Quotable Insights“Accountability is not punitive. It is protective. It protects the culture, the people, and the long‑term credibility of the organization.”“A crisis is not created by one bad decision. It is created when leaders ignore system signals that were visible long before the failure.”“The fastest way to stabilize a crisis is for the CEO to take clear ownership in the first 24 hours. Silence and deflection are accelerants.”“Leadership clarity is the antidote to crisis. When expectations, communication, and authority are unclear, harm becomes inevitable.”When CEOs Should Be Held AccountableCEOs should be held accountable when:Their decisions create avoidable harm (operational, cultural, ethical, or reputational).They ignore system signals raised by employees, customers, regulators, or data.They fail to communicate clearly and quickly in the first 24 hours of a crisis.They prioritize self‑protection over organizational transparency.Their actions erode trust, which is the foundation of every high‑performing culture.Gallup’s 2024 data shows that trust is the strongest predictor of engagement, and disengagement cost organizations $438 billion globally. CEO accountability is not optional. It is a financial imperative.—-CEO accountability should follow four questions: Who had decision rights? What warnings were available? What governance process was bypassed? What did the leader do once the risk became clear?A poor outcome alone should not end a CEO’s tenure. Accountability becomes necessary when the CEO centralized the decision, ignored credible warnings, concealed relevant facts, bypassed oversight, or failed to correct preventable harm. Boards should define consequences before a crisis, including independent review, compensation clawbacks, succession triggers, and a public explanation of what changed.FIFA is a timely example. Its $4.2 billion commercial-rights proposal was abandoned after major confederations said it advanced without proper transparency or consultation. The result is not only a failed proposal, but a legitimacy crisis around the leader and governance model. The lesson for any board is simple: the more power a CEO concentrates, the more accountability the role must carry.Dr. Morissa Schwartz is the founder and CEO of Dr. Rissy’s Writing & Marketing and GenZ Publishing, a Forbes 30 Under 30 media honoree, and a communications strategist who leads businesses and advises organizations on messaging, decision-making, and responsible AI adoption.—-I'm a Board Advisor and Enterprise Transformation Executive with more than 25 years of international experience leading complex transformation programmes across global organisations, including TE Connectivity, Honeywell and Accenture. Throughout my career, I have worked alongside executive teams and governance bodies during periods of growth, restructuring and business-critical change.From my experience, CEO accountability is often discussed only after a crisis. In reality, accountability starts much earlier. It is reflected in the way leaders make decisions, listen to different perspectives, manage risk and create a culture where concerns can be raised before they become problems.Every leader will make decisions that, with hindsight, could have been different. The real question is whether the decision was made with the right governance, the right information and the willingness to challenge assumptions.I would be pleased to contribute perspectives on:- Why accountability should be viewed as a governance principle rather than a reaction to failure.- How boards can distinguish between calculated business risk and poor leadership judgement.- Why organisational culture often determines whether a crisis is identified early or allowed to grow.- What recent corporate crises can teach leaders about trust, transparency and executive responsibility.A few perspectives that reflect my thinking:"A crisis is rarely the result of one bad decision. More often, it is the result of small warning signs that nobody felt responsible, or safe enough, to challenge.""Accountability should strengthen trust in leadership, not become a search for someone to blame.""Good governance does not eliminate difficult decisions. It creates the conditions for better decisions and greater accountability."If my perspective is relevant for your article, I would be happy to expand on these points and discuss recent examples that illustrate the role of governance and executive leadership in times of crisis.Kind regards,Lucia ItalianoBoard Advisor | Enterprise Transformation | AI Governance & Trust | M&A Integration—-am a professor of Organizational Psychology and an expert on organizational ethics with 60K+ LinkedIn following https://www.linkedin.com/in/ludmila-praslova/While the extent of damage caused by CEO decisions matters, it is also important to distinguish between honest mistakes and dishonesty/villful violations, such as disregarding the code of conduct. Byron at Astronomer and Freixe at Nestlé were removed from their positions largely for dishonesty associated with their affairs with employees. Trust is crucial for the long-term health of organizations, and is hard to rebuild when a leader serves as a poor example.Sent from:Costa Mesa, California, United States Select for downloadCollapseProposed sources:Ludmila N. Praslova (se—-Below is a concise comment for attribution, followed by two recent examples and primary-source verification. You may quote any portion and edit for length without changing the meaning. I can respond quickly by email and will not call.QUOTE FOR ATTRIBUTION:"A resignation changes the nameplate. Accountability changes the system.Boards should intervene when the decision process is compromised, not simply when the outcome is bad. A CEO who overrides a material warning without documenting why, the downside limit and the conditions for reversing course has created a governance failure, even if the next quarter still looks good. Conversely, one bad result is not proof of poor leadership when the decision was sound and the risks were properly disclosed.When bad news is softened as it moves upward, the organization pays what I call a translation tax long before the market does.Consequences should match the breach: reduced incentive compensation or clawbacks, narrowed authority, or removal. But consequences alone are not accountability. Real accountability leaves evidence: a documented root cause, a changed mechanism, measurable milestones tied to incentives, and independent verification that the correction holds. Otherwise, the board has changed the leader while preserving the conditions that produced the crisis."RECENT EXAMPLES:UnitedHealth Group illustrates the unresolved governance question. Andrew Witty stepped down for personal reasons in May 2025 as the company suspended its 2025 outlook, and Stephen Hemsley became CEO while remaining board chair. At the June 2026 annual meeting, a proposal requiring an independent chair drew 20.24% support and was not approved. This does not prove that the leadership structure caused the company's difficulties. It does show why replacing a CEO cannot, by itself, establish that board oversight has been strengthened.Verification:https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/newsroom/2025/2025-05-13-uhg-announces-leadership-transition.htmlhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/731766/000073176626000138/unh-20260601.htmWells Fargo illustrates structural accountability over time. The CEO's 2016 departure did not complete the process. The Federal Reserve's 2018 enforcement action required the bank to improve its governance and risk-management program and demonstrate through independent reviews that those improvements were effective. The asset-growth restriction was removed in June 2025, and the enforcement action was terminated in March 2026 after remediation the Federal Reserve said spanned nearly a decade. Accountability was demonstrated through verified correction, not executive turnover alone.Verification:https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/enforcement20250603a.htmhttps://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/enforcement20260305a.htmQUALIFICATIONS:Dr. Monikah Ogando is the founder and CEO of CEO Mastery and an executive leadership advisor with more than 20 years of experience advising executives and leadership teams, including senior leaders at Fortune 500 companies in healthcare and retail. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology with a focus in Organizational Leadership and an MBA. Her work centers on how executives make, communicate and correct consequential decisions, as well as the organizational cultures and accountability systems surrounding those decisions.For attribution, please describe her as:Dr. Monikah Ogando, founder and CEO of CEO Mastery and executive leadership advisorHer doctorate is academic. She is not a licensed clinician and should not be described as a psychologist.