“We have known for weeks that we should correct course. But we announced and promised it.”
This is not a sign of weak leadership. It describes a tension that arises quickly in growing companies: the executive team gives a clear direction and creates orientation—while tying its credibility to a path that may no longer be right when conditions change.
A commitment becomes problematic when an organisation no longer distinguishes between what should remain reliable and the path that must remain open to review.
What the research actually shows
A 2026 study in the Strategic Management Journal by Majid Majzoubi, Alex Murray and William J. Mayew examines public CEO promises in earnings calls by large listed US companies.
The authors analysed more than 69,000 transcripts from 2010 to 2022. Using a large language model, they identified 74,017 statements that met their narrow definition of a CEO promise: public, forward-looking, binding in tone, company-specific, directed towards a favourable outcome and reputationally meaningful.
The study describes these promises as a double-edged communication tool. They can increase confidence and shape expectations, but they also create a visible benchmark against which leaders are later judged. An additional analysis found a statistical association between unfulfilled promises and a higher likelihood of subsequent CEO dismissal.
The boundary matters: the study examines external capital-market communication. It does not directly measure whether companies internally persist with outdated projects because of earlier promises. That transfer is a practical thesis, not another research finding.
How a decision becomes an implicit contract
In practice, commitment rarely comes from one sentence. A company announces a new business field, market entry, reorganisation or fixed date. Others align budgets, responsibilities and expectations around it. When conditions later change, the original plan is no longer just a plan; it has become part of many other decisions.
Typical signals include:
- A project remains a priority although nobody can convincingly explain its current value.
- New market or customer signals are acknowledged but do not change resource allocation.
- The team keeps optimising execution although the underlying direction is barely defensible.
- Nobody can say which change would trigger a formal reassessment.
Three levels leaders should keep separate
1. The binding core
What should genuinely remain reliable for others: an intended outcome, a responsibility, a quality standard or a commitment to solve a problem seriously. This core can remain stable even when the route changes.
2. The underlying assumptions
Which expectations about market, resources, time, technology or organisation make the commitment plausible today? Assumptions are not excuses; they are the conditions under which a decision made sense.
3. The chosen route
Which solution, sequence or deadline was selected? This level must remain capable of learning. A company can stay committed to a goal and still change the route.
The strongest objection: does leadership then become arbitrary?
Constantly reopening every decision creates uncertainty, not agility. A course correction therefore needs a higher threshold than a spontaneous change of mind. It should be tied to verifiable changes: a key assumption has been disproved, the expected effect has not materialised, costs have risen materially, a new dependency has emerged or the current solution now threatens a more important goal.
Five questions before a responsible course correction
- What was actually promised? An outcome, a date, a particular route—or mainly an expectation others inferred?
- Which assumption no longer holds? A sound reassessment starts by describing precisely what has changed.
- What is the cost of continuing? Include attention, blocked decisions, motivation and lost learning time.
- What will the correction cost—and who bears that cost? Responsibility means making these consequences visible and addressing them appropriately.
- What remains binding despite the change? Which goal, standard and responsibility still apply, and which part is deliberately being decided again?
How a course correction can preserve trust
Do not let the old commitment disappear silently. A more credible sequence is to acknowledge the earlier decision and its logic, name the changed conditions, explain what still applies, specify what will change and take responsibility for the consequences.
Agility needs an agreed space
Many course corrections fail not because information is missing, but because everyday operations leave no shared space in which leaders can look at the existing promise, the new reality and the consequences at the same time.
In my work as a Fractional Chief of Staff, I help executive teams reflect honestly, explain their decisions transparently and find authentic, precise language for change. When this clarification needs distance from daily operations, a Business Retreat can provide the right setting.
Are you currently facing situations like this—and how are you dealing with them?
Source and editorial context
This article takes as its starting point the study by Majid Majzoubi, Alex Murray and William J. Mayew, “Shaping expectations, losing flexibility: A study of CEO promises as strategic communication tools.” It is not a complete account of the study; it connects its central tension with observations from organisational practice and offers the resulting ideas for discussion.
Note on how this article was created
This article was created with the support of AI. I make that visible for reasons of transparency and do not see it as a contradiction to personal authorship.
What matters to me is not whether a first draft is produced with the help of a tool. What matters is who sets the direction, sharpens the thinking, leads the iterations, reviews the wording and ultimately takes responsibility for the content.
This text is therefore the result of briefings, iterations, professional judgement and my own revision. I publish only what genuinely fits my perspective and what I am personally prepared to stand behind.