Howard Levitt: Today’s CEOs are a company’s most exposed flank — and the attacks are mounting

The biggest threat now facing chief executives appears nowhere on balance sheets or risk matrices but on Twitter, in headlines and in activist playbooks, writes Howard Levitt. Photo by Getty Images/iStockphoto

Article content

For most of modern corporate history, employment law risk was managed institutionally — through policies, HR departments and indemnities. That presumption is now outdated.

Article content

Today, the fastest-growing exposure and risk runs directly through the chief executive as an individual employee and fiduciary. Boards that still treat controversy as a communications issue are discovering, often too late, that regulators, activists and plaintiffs’ lawyers are weaponizing employment and human-rights frameworks to target leaders personally.

Article content

Article content

Article content

The biggest threat now facing CEOs appears nowhere on balance sheets or risk matrices but on Twitter, in headlines and in activist playbooks designed to break individuals rather than institutions — or, at least, institutions through their CEOs. Boards that fail to adjust to this reality are gambling with their leadership.

Article content

Article content

Boards are only beginning to understand this shift. Many, indeed most, still treat controversy as a communications problem — something to be managed with statements, apologies or time.

Article content

Regulators, activists and plaintiffs’ lawyers understand it differently. They know the most efficient pressure point is no longer the institution but the individual who leads it.

Article content

The modern CEO — especially one who is articulate, values-driven and publicly visible — is no longer just an executive. He or she is a governance signal, a reputational proxy and, increasingly, the primary target. The law has not materially changed. The environment has.

Article content

In practice, the pattern is familiar to anyone who has lived through a real crisis. A public statement, often careful and well-intentioned, becomes a headline. The headline becomes a campaign. The campaign attracts regulatory attention, investor anxiety, advertiser hesitation or internal unrest. By the time the legal department is fully engaged, what initially looked like reputational noise has hardened into personal exposure for the CEO.

Article content

Article content

This is not accidental. It is strategic.

Article content

Article content

Corporations are resilient. Individuals are not. Activists understand this. So do regulators operating under political pressure.

Article content

CEOs have reputations, families, immigration considerations, future board prospects and careers that extend well beyond their current role. Apply enough pressure to the individual and the institution almost always moves.

Article content

Many boards respond with outdated tools. Tighter message discipline. Faster apologies. More process. That playbook no longer works. The real question is whether the organization understands where the CEO’s personal fault lines now lie — and whether it has prepared for them before pressure arrives.

Article content

Three developments explain why this moment feels different.

Article content

First, the collapse of the boundary between public speech and corporate responsibility. Officially, the line still exists. In practice, it is porous. Statements are judged less by intent than by reaction. Silence is treated as a position. Clarification is framed as escalation. What matters is not what was said, but how it can be leveraged.