There is an African proverb that says: ‘The fly that no one chases thinks it is a king’. But there is another, far deeper one: ‘The man who chases every fly will never eat in peace’. Between those two proverbs lies the entire dilemma of crisis management.
In the unfolding drama surrounding United Bank for Africa’s (UBA) response to the false social media claims about Group Chairman Tony Elumelu’s marriage, I see a clear example of corporate overreach. While the desire to protect a respected leader is understandable, spearheading arrests has turned a private rumour into a public spectacle. I do not support fake news, but I believe UBA as an organisation should not have led the process of arresting these individuals. Knowing when to fight matters more than fighting every battle.
1. Knowing When to Fight: The Art of Discernment Over Reaction
Knowing when to fight is more important than fighting. Organisations must exercise discernment in reputational threats. Not every personal matter involving a leader requires institutional intervention. Divorce rumours, no matter how sensational, remain private unless they directly threaten corporate governance, financial stability or operations. Timothy Coombs, in his work on ongoing crisis communication, advises that responses should match the type of crisis (Coombs, 2022). Personal issues call for minimal organisational involvement to preserve dignity. An aggressive approach often signals vulnerability instead.
Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, warns: ‘He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight’. From a Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) perspective, crisis response must be proportional to organisational attribution of responsibility. Research shows that overreaction to low-attribution crises can amplify reputational damage rather than mitigate it (Coombs, 2007).
In this case, the allegation was personal (divorce, paternity), unconnected to corporate governance, and not linked to operational integrity of the bank. Therefore, by SCCT logic, this was a ‘non-crisis’ for the organisation. Yet UBA escalated it into an institutional response. This is what crisis scholars call ‘Issue Inflation’ when organisations elevate a non-threatening issue into a reputational event (Heath, 2010).
Research on misinformation psychology supports this view. Aggressive legal actions against low stakes falsehoods frequently trigger reactance, where people resist perceived threats to their freedom and end up seeking out and believing the very claims one wishes to suppress.
For instance, let us look at a scenario of a company defending its CEO against extramarital affair rumours illustrates the danger. Headlines such as ‘Our CEO’s wife is not having an affair’ or announcements of arrests could backfire spectacularly if the story later proves true. Stakeholders might perceive a cover up, inflicting far greater damage on the company than the original rumour.
In contrast, the FCMB’s MD’ Paternity allegation rumour is a good example of when the organisation should intervene. In FCMB’s case, the allegation involves a formal employee and the narrative suggested that the affair took place while she was still with the company. In this case, the Organisation was right to be at the fore front of this crisis.
Yorubas often say, it is unnecessary to carry a load you can carry with one hand with two hands. Thus, in this case of the UBA CEO, the load belonged to personal legal representation, not the corporate brand.
2. Separation of Brands: The CEO as Mortal, the Corporation as Enduring Institution
I also argue for a clear separation of brands. In many African contexts, the personal brand of the CEO often merges with the corporate identity. While a leader’s actions can influence the organisation positively or negatively, treating them as one and the same creates unnecessary fragility. The CEO is the captain, but the company is the vessel. When the organisation publicly fights battles over the captain’s private life, passengers begin to question the seaworthiness of the entire ship.
Whenever an Organisation blurs the distinction between its brand and the CEO’s, it echoes the philosophy of ‘bad faith’, where institutions deceive themselves by equating the leader’s image with their own enduring essence. Studies on corporate reputation confirm that such blurred boundaries heighten risks when personal crises arise (Carrillo-Durán et al., 2023).
Globally, many Organisations often mistake the crown for the kingdom. But branding theory disagrees. David Aaker (1996), in Building Strong Brands, emphasizes that brands must maintain distinct identities to preserve long-term equity. This is reinforced by Corporate Identity Theory (Balmer, 2001), which stresses that organisations must differentiate between corporate brand and leadership persona to maintain resilience in crisis. When you fuse the CEO with the company, you mortgage the company’s reputation to the CEO’s humanity. And humanity is imperfect.
3. The Best Managed Crisis Is the One That Never Reached the Media: The Perils of Amplification
Another key principle I emphasise to clients is that the best managed crisis is the one that never reaches the media. UBA’s very public actions exemplify the Streisand Effect, where attempts to suppress information dramatically increase its visibility (Masnick, 2005, as cited in Wikipedia contributors, n.d.). What began as an obscure rumour that many, including myself, had not encountered suddenly became national news. This stems from psychological dynamics such as the forbidden fruit effect and the illusory truth effect, where repeated exposure, even through denials, lends familiarity and credibility to falsehoods (Hasher et al., 1977; Henderson et al., 2021). In cyberspace, algorithms connect people of similar views and amplify emotional content. By escalating, UBA may have inadvertently created heroes or martyrs out of the accused.
The Nunes Cow
As Marshall McLuhan wrote in Understanding Media: ‘The medium is the message’. By stepping in, UBA didn’t just respond, it legitimized the conversation. An Igbo proverb captures this perfectly: ‘He who brings home ant-infested firewood invites lizards to his house’.
If someone calls you a thief, summoning your brother to beat him up amounts to an admission of guilt. The wiser path is to live with such transparency that your character itself serves as proof. This is why I often advise clients to address the message before the messenger. There are more effective, less dramatic ways to counter online misinformation like:
- Quiet monitoring
- Factual clarifications from family or personal counsel
- Strategic content that reinforces truth without fanfare, and
- Building such strong goodwill that rumours dissolve harmlessly.
CONCLUSION
I find support for this approach in classical wisdom. Marcus Aurelius reminded us to focus on what lies within our control. Personal marital matters largely fall outside corporate control. In Africa we often say, ‘silence is also speech, and we are masters of our unspoken words but slaves to those we utter.
In an era of platform driven attention, strategic restraint represents not weakness but the highest form of strength. Organisations that master discernment, brand separation and thoughtful silence will endure. Those that chase every shadow risk becoming the very story they sought to silence. This is the maturity I urge leaders and communicators to embrace.
In Africa’s vibrant digital landscape, where personalism meets rapid information flows, such wisdom separates enduring institutions from those consumed by avoidable crises.
According to Ian Mitroff (2005), ‘The worst crises are often those created by the organisation’s own response.” The greatest power in crisis management is not in speaking. It is in knowing when silence speaks louder than sirens.
Ishola, N. Ayodele is a distinguished and multiple award-winning strategic communication expert who specialises in ‘Message Engineering’. He helps Organisations, Brands and Leaders Communicate in a way that yields the desired outcome. He is the author of the seminal work, ‘PR Case Studies; Mastering the Trade’, and Dean, the School of Impactful Communication (TSIC). He can be reached via ishopr2015@gmail.com or 08077932282
