On July 22, Kimberly Cheatle, director of the United States Secret Service, faced a reputational crisis. Testifying before Congress about the assassination attempt on former President Trump, her opaque answers raised doubts about her leadership capacity. By July 23, her 30-year career with the agency was over.
Cheatle is not the first prominent person with authority to have bad things happen during their tenure. Some manage to keep their positions, while others do not. Cheatle’s swift downfall highlights the critical communication skills leaders must master during crises. Cheatle’s inability to anticipate risks, articulate her agency’s response requirements and demonstrate decisive action eroded stakeholder confidence in her ability to protect those under her charge. The following analysis of pain points reveal lessons from Cheatle’s (and the Secret Service’s) crisis.
Proactive Problem-Solving vs. Analysis Paralysis
Rather than outlining a clear plan to address security gaps, Cheatle’s testimony focused on the nascent stage of the investigation. While maintaining investigative integrity is crucial, leaders must make decisions and solve problems. Acknowledging preliminary findings and outlining immediate actions would have demonstrated accountability and prioritized public safety. Instead, Cheatle’s lack of concrete steps signaled “analysis paralysis,” hindering swift implementation of necessary changes.
Effective leaders communicate what they are doing, not just what they are analyzing. Had Cheatle demonstrated a proactive leadership approach, Congress and the American people might still have confidence in her ability to lead her agency beyond this crisis.
Prepare for the Worst and Shape the Narrative
It is hard to believe the Secret Service never considered what it would do, and how it would talk about it, if the worst-case scenario—a protected official was attacked or killed—became reality. Could it be the agency never considered it could fail?
Failure is always possible. Effective leaders anticipate risks. They have a “break glass in case of emergency” communication plan from which to draw, especially in the initial chaos of unfolding events. The agency’s delayed and sparse statements at the peak of the crisis created conditions for conspiracy theories and confusion. Cheatle’s testimony was an opportunity to regain control, but her vague answers ceded the narrative and further eroded public trust.
Prioritize the Court of Public Opinion
Cheatle’s emphasis on investigative procedures during her four hours before Congress, while valid in a legal setting, fell short in the court of public opinion. Repeatedly noting it had been “just” nine days since the incident, disregards the public’s immediate need for reassurance. Considering it is the Secret Service’s responsibility to protect nearly 1,700 dignitaries including the president and vice president, objectively, nine days is too long for the senior-most leader of an agency responsible for life and death to NOT have answers about what went wrong in Butler, Pennsylvania. The sheer scale of this responsibility necessitates real-time adjustments and visible action, not just a retrospective analysis once an investigation is complete—in 60 days—according to Cheatle’s testimony.
Good leadership is done through communication. Cheatle’s downfall underscores the fundamental link between effective communication and leadership. Effective leaders wield good communication—they do not react to events or only communicate because they must.
Cheatle’s public communications lacked the decisive leadership and transparency the public craves in times of crisis. Cheatle’s testimony demonstrated her lack of media savvy at best, and poor leadership at worst. The reality might be somewhere in the middle. Her communications failures highlighted her leadership gaps, which ultimately led to her resignation. This case is a reminder of the consequences of “analysis paralysis” and reactive communication by leaders.
Michelle M. Johnson is CEO at MXEM1NC Media Training and Consulting.