Credible Transparency Should Drive Executive Departures

By Jennifer Stein, Managing Director, GGi Communications  

Spar CEO Angelo Swartz’s resignation letter is refreshing for its candour, transparency and sincerity. Currency News framed it particularly well: “Then, in a move that is as remarkable as it is rare for a top executive, he takes responsibility for the lack of progress on the recovery front.” 

It’s also a radical departure from the well-used stock phrase that is trotted out by PR teams time and time again: the executive in question is resigning to “spend more time with family.”   It’s a PR-safe, neutral, non-confrontational explanation used to protect reputation on all sides. Instead of saying: “the board and I disagreed” or “the company is underperforming” or “there’s a governance issue”, they use a phrase that protects reputations on all sides. 

The bland “spending more time with family” helps keep markets calm. Wording in resignation announcements matters with listed companies, and this avoids legal and market complications. Anything that signals conflict, performance issues, or instability can spook investors, trigger share price volatility or invite regulatory scrutiny. 

It preserves future career prospects: executives often reappear months later at another company, private equity firm, or board role. A public admittance of conflict or failure can follow them. A family-focused exit is dignified and uncontroversial. It’s culturally convenient: in corporate culture, the avoidance of direct confrontation is often preferred. The phrase signals there is no scandal, the executive and the board are parting on good terms and there is no need to dig further. Sometimes it is true, but it’s rarely the whole truth. We can’t ignore the fact that senior roles are relentlessly pressurised and burnout is real. But when the executive joins a competitor within weeks, or the resignation follows poor results, a failed deal, or governance tension, observers reasonably suspect there is more beneath the surface. 

What it usually signals is one of more of these factors: board pressure, strategic misalignment, performance concerns, succession acceleration or a pre-negotiated exit. 

It’s more about managed messaging and executive narrative control than pretence, and it’s  where reputation management and governance either reinforce trust or quietly erode it. 

Yet when companies default to “spending more time with family,” stakeholders assume spin. The goal is credible transparency, and there are ways to handle executive departures to avoid cynicism while still protecting confidentiality: 

Be specific, within boundaries Vague language fuels suspicion. Instead of: “John has decided to pursue personal interests”, use something more concrete, which signals that the decision is strategic, not secretive: “The board and CEO have agreed that the company now requires a different leadership profile as we enter a capital-intensive expansion phase.” “Following the completion of the successful three-year turnaround strategy, the CEO will step down.” Anchor the exit in strategy If the departure connects to a strategy shift, say so. Transition from founder-led governance Moving from growth phase to consolidation Digital transformation requiring different expertise Completion of M&A integration When the rationale aligns with business direction, the market interprets it as evolution rather than theatre. Acknowledge contribution but don’t overcompensate A balanced tone works well as excessive praise can read like damage control.  Recognise measurable achievements, reference tenure and avoid flattering superlatives that can feel defensive. Signal immediate stability Cynicism increases when uncertainty lingers and markets fear vacuums more than departures.  Announce an interim successor simultaneously, confirm continuity of strategy (if applicable) and clarify the governance process for permanent replacement. Align internal and external messaging If you don’t want credibility to collapse, ensure that the board briefs leadership teams before public release, align internal and external messages, prepare managers with talking points, anticipate likely media angles and ensure parallel timing on all announcements.  Avoid the “family” trope unless it’s verifiably true Authenticity matters. If an executive genuinely retires due to health or family priorities, state it respectfully and clearly.  Use the chairperson voice strategically When the chairperson frames the departure, it signals governance oversight and reinforces that this is a board-led decision. For listed entities in particular, governance credibility carries weight with institutional investors. Context is king The same wording means different things depending on recent performance, activist shareholder activity, regulatory scrutiny, failed deals or scandals. Stakeholders interpret announcements through context, not just phrasing. Credible transparency balances the protection of confidentiality – there is no disclosure of sensitive personnel matters or defamation risk. It maintains market stability via clear messaging relating to succession and strategic continuity, and most importantly, it preserves trust.