Action, inaction, and the credibility gap

Recent years have provided several instructive examples across Nordic companies. When broader societal debates began to affect perceptions of Finland internationally, Finnair chose to intervene publicly despite not being the origin of the controversy, based on reporting by the BBC in December. The decision reflected a clear understanding that silence would have been interpreted as indifference, with real implications for international trust and business.

By contrast, the public discussion surrounding Gofore illustrates a leadership challenge that is increasingly common in modern organizations: the movement of internal communication into the public sphere. In this case, a discussion originally intended for an internal Slack channel entered the public domain and became a subject of broader societal discussion beyond the organization itself, as reported by Helsingin Sanomat earlier this month.

In such situations, reputational effects are shaped not only by the original internal exchange but also by how organizational leadership addresses the matter once it becomes public. As the case is still recent, its possible longer-term implications cannot yet be assessed. To date, Gofore has communicated its position in a clear manner through a combination of individual leaders’ social media statements and press releases. 

Finlayson, on the other hand, represents a distinctly proactive model. Rather than responding case by case, the company has repeatedly chosen to intervene publicly on issues it considers aligned with its values. This approach has not been without risk or criticism, but it demonstrates a critical leadership insight: reputation is not formed in isolated moments, but through consistent choices over time. By accepting the cost of intervention, leadership defines what the organization stands for and what it will not ignore.

In a Nordic context, this consistency matters deeply. Credibility is not built through consensus, but through coherence. People may disagree with individual positions, but they trust leaders who are predictable in their principles.

What these situations reveal is a broader truth: words without action erode trust. Organizations may speak convincingly about inclusion, respect, or psychological safety, but those values only gain meaning when leaders are willing to act on them, and especially when doing so is uncomfortable.

Inaction is still a decision

Nordic leaders are often cautious about overreacting. Dialogue, reflection, and fairness are deeply ingrained leadership traits. But in today’s environment, delay itself communicates priorities.

When leaders choose not to intervene, observers do not assume neutrality. They assume tolerance. In high-trust cultures, this assumption carries particular weight: If leadership does not act, people conclude that the behavior in question is acceptable or at least not important enough to challenge.

This is how reputation is shaped not only by action, but by tolerated inaction. Organizational culture is defined less by stated values than by the moments when leaders choose to step in or consciously step aside.

It is tempting to frame these situations as communication challenges or social media dynamics. In reality, they are leadership tests, and especially in Nordic organizations, where leaders are expected to take responsibility rather than hide behind process.

The question Nordic leaders must answer

In a region built on trust, equality, and openness, leaders must confront questions that go beyond messaging:

• What are we willing to intervene in, and even when it is uncomfortable?

• Where do we draw the line, knowing that inaction will be interpreted as acceptance?

• What does our silence say about our leadership?

Reputation in the Nordic context is not built through slogans or statements. It is built through decisions that are visible, repeated, and sometimes difficult.

And more often than not, it is defined by the moments when leaders choose not to intervene.