Since October 7 woefully few companies and academic institutions have expressed their horror at the atrocities that have been committed and the ongoing suffering due to terrorism. When else in history have so few been so silent after a massive act of terrorism? After 9-11? Definitely not. Why now?

During the past several years we have witnessed an explosive proliferation in ‘statements of support’ from company CEOs and university presidents about a huge range of topics that strike fear in us all. We now expect them to share their perspectives, which was unthinkable just 20 years ago. This represents a shift towards compassion as a desirable train among leaders. Ellyn Shook, the chief leadership and HR officer at Accenture, recently referred to leadership characteristics that are being prioritized in CEOs in an article from Alan Murray’s CEO Daily, saying, “The first is compassion, being able to show compassion, which to me simply is empathy in action. It’s not just being empathetic, but actually doing something about it.”

And yet here we are in relative silence from the thought-leaders of society as unforgettable crimes are being perpetrated.

Fear of saying the wrong thing is preventing corporate and academic leaders in positions of great influence from decrying the barbaric killing and hostage-taking. As a communications and strategy consultant on complex and sensitive matters to companies and nonprofit organizations involving their stakeholders, I’m often asked by leaders how they can weigh in on sensitive topics. I help them navigate a process I dubbed ‘reputation calculus’ to guide them.

Anyone who has been following the events beginning October 7 between Hamas and Israel has an opinion on what is just and unjust, appropriate and inappropriate, right and wrong. The critical thinkers who lead companies and academia undoubtedly have their own strong personal opinions. However, comments from these organizations and their leaders about the murders and destruction have been very few. Why? Because the reputation calculus of events leading up to today and the uncertainty of its future make it impossible to understand the outcomes of such a statement. Equally significant is their fear of being asked, “On which side do you stand?”

Just when we started to get used to companies and academia taking every chance possible to distinguish themselves for their progress to dismantle racism, encourage diversity, equity and inclusion, or condemn illegal occupations, the flood of condemning and supportive statements on topics of all kind we’ve gotten used to has turned into a trickle at best. Most large companies, colleges and universities have openly and frequently spoken publicly about police brutality following the murder of George Floyd, the challenge to national sovereignty of Ukraine by Russia, and even the perennial third-rail issue of abortion. These are all topics of great debate and disagreement but there is greater clarity among the variables impacting public opinion. The reputation calculus is less difficult to compute. Whereas the historical context and complexity of what is occurring in real time in the Middle East are quite different from a communications perspective.

The only area where there appears to be some universal agreement is about the depravity of killing non-military Palestinians and Jews and even that depends on the perspective of the speaker.

The main reason university presidents and CEOs have been reluctant to comment is the scale of variable factors in these circumstances which includes the lack of consensus about why these attacks occurred, the historic origins and significance of what’s happening, the revolving door of evacuations and evictions, the difficult questions they raise about the future of the land involved, and the uncertainty of who may be further involved. That overwhelming uncertainty and lack of consensus among opinions are why I believe many who would normally make statements denouncing the killing and hostage-taking of the non-military have refrained from doing so. And that silence is deafening and painful for those who look to their presidents and CEOs for leadership and affirmation of their own feelings and sense of community.

So, is there a ‘safe space’ for a statement denouncing the atrocities and acts of terrorism? Yes, because all statements of support do not need to be the same and do not need to address every point that matters to the stakeholders of an organization. There is ample room for heads of companies and universities to lend their voices and messages of care and support to the victims of terrorism and to those who are connected to it one way or another without inviting or entertaining the question, on what side do you stand? They must first recognize that sitting silently while the hearts of their stakeholders ache is not an option while also being clear that they will not choose sides. The two are not mutually exclusive. The evolved CEO or president in this era of compassionate leadership who is paralyzed by the reputation calculus of this situation has options, and they must accept some risk in displaying their own compassion.

Expressing sadness, grief and dismay are not signs of weakness in a leader but rather signals of our own humanity which is needed more than ever on university campuses and in corporate halls. After all, compassion is what is needed most at this moment and may help to better connect us during a time of great pain and suffering regardless of which side you stand with.