Silence is Golden? Lessons from the SAP Crisis in an Age of Distrust

The aim of this article is not to detail the events that occurred at the company or to engage in speculation, but to illustrate the challenges of managing a crisis that affects an organisation’s culture and structure.

The Storm

For the public, the most striking element was not the departure of a senior executive — that is a natural part of corporate life — but that the news did not come from the company itself. Instead, it emerged through the press, accompanied by several colourful but unconfirmed details, at a time when the parent company was already dealing with serious issues. The resulting information vacuum was filled by journalists and the public with speculation, rumours and sensitive interpretations. SAP’s official response was limited to a brief statement: the managing director was leaving, a major event was cancelled and the company “does not comment on rumours.”

This might have seemed like an easy short-term solution, but in the long run it only intensified uncertainty — particularly risky at a time when, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer, seven out of ten people believe corporate leaders intentionally mislead the public, a 12-point increase since 2021. In the same survey (source citation needed), 61% said they hold strong negative feelings toward companies. In such an environment of distrust, credible and transparent crisis communication is no longer a luxury or an option — it is a fundamental expectation.

The Three Faces of Crisis

Crises can be categorised in many ways. At FleishmanHillard, we distinguish three main types based on their underlying causes.

Force majeure, externally driven crises: when a company becomes the victim of an unforeseen event such as a natural disaster, pandemic or cyberattack. Classic examples include the September 11 attacks or the COVID-19 pandemic, which shook the global economy at its core.

Crises caused by individual misconduct: when the mistake, incompetence or malicious action of an employee leads to a crisis. This includes Société Générale’s 2008 case, when a single trader, Jérôme Kerviel, opened risky unauthorised positions and hid them. The bank lost €4.9 billion.

Structural, culture-driven crises: the most complex and dangerous type, because the root problem is deeply embedded in the organisation’s functioning. Protocols, corporate values and decision-making mechanisms themselves create the potential for future crises. Examples include Volkswagen’s emissions scandal or the Wells Fargo cross-selling scandal.

It is no surprise that most companies try to place their own crisis into the first two categories — it is easier to appear as a victim than to take responsibility. When that fails, scapegoating often follows. A memorable case in Hungary was the National Ambulance Service in 2023, where after an investigation a dispatcher was blamed for a delayed ambulance arrival to actor János Gálvölgyi. Although this may seem convenient in the short term, the public rarely believes that a single “ordinary person” caused a systemic failure.

Where the SAP Case Fits

SAP Hungary’s crisis clearly belongs to the third category: it is a structural issue. The circumstances of the departure, the questionable emails and the findings of the internal investigation all indicate that this was not the mistake of one leader. Yet the company’s communication shifted the focus toward individual responsibility: the story centred on the departure of Szabolcs Pintér, while nothing was said about organisational culture or any preventative or future corrective measures.

When Silence Backfires

History is full of examples of companies attempting to explain structural problems as individual mistakes — and consistently failing.

· Volkswagen emissions scandal: initially described as a “software error” and “mistakes by a few engineers.” Later it was revealed to be deliberate, systemic fraud. The attempt to cover it up prolonged the reputational damage for years.

· Wells Fargo: employees opened millions of fake accounts to meet unrealistic sales targets. Leadership long referred to them as “isolated incidents,” even though the culture itself created the crisis.

· Boeing 737 MAX: after two tragic crashes, the company first blamed pilots, then attempted to frame the situation as a technical fault. It was later revealed that failures in safety culture and cost-cutting pressure had caused the catastrophe. The loss of trust persists to this day.

These examples serve as warnings: silence, minimisation and deflection always cause more harm than transparent communication.

Why Silence Is Dangerous

Loss of credibility: if a company avoids naming the real problem, it suggests it does not intend to solve it.

Strengthening of rumours: the “we do not comment” approach creates an information vacuum that the public fills — usually with scenarios darker than reality.

Reputational risk: a structural crisis cannot be resolved by dismissing a few employees. Without visible corrective measures, every new issue carries twice the weight.

What Could Have Been More Credible?

Although it is never simple or entirely fair to comment on an ongoing situation from the outside — as we cannot know what is happening internally or how much autonomy the local subsidiary has — there are general principles worth considering.

Preparation: in a world of overlapping crises, the question is not whether a company or brand will face a crisis, but when. Organisations must prepare, plan and build systems that can handle major disruptions, including the departure of senior leaders. A strong system also helps ensure that any situation is handled appropriately.

Proactive communication: the truth eventually emerges; it is better to address it early than explain it later.

Clear communication: not only externally but also with employees and partners.

Accountability: acknowledging when changes are needed in corporate culture.

Concrete steps: announcing new policies, internal audits and training initiatives. The public finds the “we will learn from this and make changes” message far more credible than silence.

Dialogue: responding to media and public questions with controlled, transparent communication rather than withdrawal.

Conclusion

SAP Hungary’s crisis is a reminder that the true weight of a crisis is not determined by the events themselves, but by how the public interprets them. Communication alone does not solve underlying business issues — but it can bring the organisation’s internal reality closer to what the public perceives. The examples of Volkswagen, Wells Fargo and Boeing all show that culture-driven crises can only be managed in the long term through openness, accountability and transparent communication.

‍