When Leaders Leave an Information Void, Fear Fills It
I grew up less than two hours from Gary, Indiana, and I have driven through the city many times. Like many communities built around American industry, Gary has endured economic decline, population loss, aging infrastructure, and decades of being defined from the outside by its problems.
That history matters when a crisis strikes.
After severe storms tore through Northwest Indiana on August 11, thousands of Gary residents remained without power for nearly two weeks. Families lost food, businesses lost income, schools closed, and vulnerable residents struggled to keep medications and medical equipment in working order. At one point, more than 20,000 customers in Gary were still waiting for electricity to be restored.
The physical damage was extraordinary. Winds reportedly reached 99 miles per hour, hundreds of utility poles were damaged, and portions of the electrical system essentially had to be rebuilt. But the restoration effort was not the only problem.
The communication also failed.
When NIPSCO released estimated restoration times for affected communities, Gary was initially left off the list. Mayor Eddie Melton said he had to demand more specific information for his city. In the absence of credible answers, confusion grew and a false rumor circulated that some residents might remain without power until September 12.
That moment offers two critical lessons for every leader.
Leadership Observation No. 1: An Information Void Never Stays Empty
When leaders do not provide clear information, people begin creating their own explanations from partial facts, social media posts, personal experiences, fear, and frustration.
For Gary residents, being omitted from the restoration schedule was not merely a missing line on a utility update. In a city that has long carried the weight of disinvestment and outside judgment, it could easily feel like confirmation of an old and painful belief:
We have been forgotten again.
That does not mean leaders should release information before it has been verified. It means they must communicate what they know, acknowledge what they do not know, explain what they are doing to find out, and tell people exactly when another update will be provided.
In broadcasting, dead air quickly makes an audience wonder whether something has gone wrong. Leadership communication works much the same way. Silence creates uncertainty, and prolonged uncertainty weakens trust.
The leadership tip is simple: establish a predictable communication rhythm before rumors establish one for you. Even if there is no major change, say so. “We do not have a final restoration time yet, but here is what crews completed today, here is what remains, and we will update you again at 6 p.m.” is far more reassuring than silence.
Leaders do not need every answer to communicate credibly. They need honesty, consistency, and a visible commitment to keep people informed.
Leadership Observation No. 2: Don’t Bury the Lead
NIPSCO faced an enormous recovery operation. Crews reportedly had to replace approximately 300 distribution poles and 44 transmission poles while clearing fallen trees and rebuilding damaged sections of the system. Those facts help explain why restoration could not happen immediately.
But they were not the first facts Gary residents needed to hear.
The lead was not, “Our crews are working around the clock.”
The lead was:
Gary experienced some of the worst infrastructure damage in the region, and many residents may remain without power until August 25.
That is difficult information to deliver, but it immediately answers the audience’s most urgent questions: Why is this taking so long, and when can we expect relief?
Only after stating that, should leaders explain the damaged transmission lines, broken poles, additional crews, safety challenges, and available assistance.
Too many organizations begin crisis communication by describing their own effort. They talk about how hard their employees are working, how unprecedented the situation is, and how many resources have been deployed. All of that may be true, but the audience is still waiting to hear what the crisis means for them.
From a broadcaster’s perspective, effective crisis communication should quickly answer five questions:
What happened?
How does it affect me?
What should I do now?
When should I expect something to change?
When will you speak to me again?
Mayor Melton eventually helped bring greater clarity to the situation. He expressed his residents' frustration, pushed for better information, and still acknowledged the extraordinary difficulty of rebuilding the damaged system. That balance mattered. He advocated for his community without pretending there was a simple or immediate solution.
The broader lesson is that communication is not separate from emergency response. It is part of the response. People use official information to make decisions about food, shelter, medical needs, transportation, employment, and their families' safety.
Leaders may not be able to restore electricity themselves, stop the floodwater, or remove every fallen tree. But they can prevent certain people from facing the crisis without clear, credible, and compassionate information.
When the power goes out, trust does not have to go out with it.
Fill the information void before fear fills it for you—and when you speak, don’t bury the lead.
— Rich “Trigger” BontragerAmerica’s Leadership Broadcaster™Creator of Lead Through The Lens™ and the H.E.A.R.T. Method™
Comments