There is a phrase that surfaces after nearly every corporate crisis: "Our goal is to get back on track." A company that loses market share wants to return to growth. A bank facing declining profitability wants to restore previous performance. A startup that missed its targets wants to return to the point where everything still seemed possible.
Success is often measured by the ability to recreate what once worked. But should organizations really try to return to the same path? Does the reality that existed before the crisis still exist? Or is the attempt to recreate the past precisely what prevents an organization from building its future?
It's not the crisis that brings down organizations
This is more than a philosophical question. Organizations invest significant resources in postmortems and lessons-learned exercises, yet they often fail to translate those lessons into meaningful change. It is entirely possible to understand exactly what went wrong and still repeat the same mistake because the learning remains at the level of explanation rather than challenging the underlying assumptions that drive decision-making.
At first glance, this seems like a modern management insight. In fact, it appears in the writings of Rabbi Isaac Arama, the 15th-century Spanish Jewish philosopher and biblical commentator best known for Akedat Yitzhak ("The Binding of Isaac"), in his interpretation of the opening chapters of Deuteronomy.
As Moses stands before the Israelites' entry into the Land of Israel, one might expect him to speak about the future — about nation-building and the vision awaiting the people. Instead, he revisits Horeb (Mount Sinai), the sin of the spies, the years of wandering in the desert and the moments when the people lost their way.
Arama explains that Moses is not merely recounting history or attempting to evoke guilt. Rather, he presents a model describing how nations, organizations and individuals develop over time.
The first stage is tranquility. It is a period of growth, stability and success. The organization is united, leadership functions effectively, employees believe in the mission and the system advances with confidence. The Bible describes this period by saying, "The Lord your God has multiplied you, and today you are as numerous as the stars of the sky." In Arama's view, this represents a system operating in harmony, with each part fulfilling its role.
Yet it is precisely within success that the second stage begins: complacency.
Arama does not mean momentary carelessness, but something much deeper. Success breeds confidence, confidence turns into certainty, and certainty gradually erodes the curiosity and humility that produced success in the first place. The organization stops asking whether its path is still the right one because past success convinces it that the question no longer needs to be asked.
This is one of management's great paradoxes. Organizations do not always fail because they never learned how to succeed. Sometimes they fail because they succeeded too well. The model that once gave them a competitive advantage becomes a source of rigidity. Old decisions become tradition. Organizational structures become ends in themselves. Any attempt to challenge the status quo is viewed as a threat.
When rigidity collides with a changing reality, the third stage arrives: decline and crisis.
(Photo: Shutterstock)
But the crisis itself is not what interests Arama. Crises have always existed and always will. The important question is what happens afterward.
Here lies his central insight. A crisis is not the end of the story. It marks the end of the third stage. The most important stage begins only after it.
The fourth stage appears in a brief biblical verse: "You have circled this mountain long enough. Now turn north."
On its face, this is simply a travel instruction. Arama sees it as a model of leadership.
The purpose of crisis is not to leave people broken. It is to change the direction in which they are moving. The punishment is not the destination. It is intended to free the people from the worldview that led them to failure.
That is why the Israelites do not return to Horeb or attempt to recreate the early days of success. They set out on a new journey with a new understanding.
This is the difference between recovery and repentance.
Recovery seeks to restore sales to previous levels. Repentance asks whether the product still solves the problem it was created to address.
Recovery seeks to lift the share price. Repentance asks whether the organization is still creating value.
Recovery tries to save the plan. Repentance is willing to rethink the assumptions that produced it.
The same principle can be seen in business leadership, where success often depends on the willingness to challenge fundamental assumptions rather than merely making technical adjustments.
One recent example is Israel Discount Bank Group's announcement that it is considering merging Mercantile Discount Bank, its long-standing retail banking subsidiary, into the parent bank.
Such a move can be analyzed in terms of cost savings, efficiency or organizational structure. But behind those considerations lies a deeper question: Is an organization willing to reconsider structures created decades earlier, even after they have become part of its institutional identity?
One could argue that such a review should have taken place years ago. One could also argue that there were sound reasons for maintaining separate institutions in the past. The more interesting question is not whether the earlier decision was right or wrong. It is whether leadership can free itself from the assumption that what worked yesterday must necessarily work tomorrow.
Leadership is not loyalty to past decisions. It is loyalty to the purpose those decisions were originally meant to serve.
The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote that true repetition is not returning to where we once were, but returning to life as a different person. One does not erase the past but gives it new meaning.
The same idea appears in Arama's commentary. The Israelites do not return to the starting point. They enter the Land of Israel as a different nation from the one that left Egypt.
That is also the question every executive team should ask after a crisis: Are we truly changing, or are we simply trying to become who we once were?
I have encountered this question personally. Some business initiatives require years of work. Teams are built around them. Negotiations proceed with the belief that success is within reach. When such an initiative ultimately fails, the instinctive response is often to revive the same plan with a few adjustments.
In hindsight, however, the more important question is not always how to rescue the plan. Sometimes it is: What would we do if we were starting today, knowing everything we know now?
More often than not, the answer is not a minor correction but a much deeper change in the way decisions are made.
Perhaps this is the meaning of the biblical phrase, "You have circled this mountain long enough."
There comes a point when even analyzing failure becomes another form of stagnation. Organizations can establish committees, write lengthy reports and continue explaining why they failed. Leadership begins at the moment someone says: We have learned. Now we change direction.
Arama's model suggests four questions every leadership team should ask:
Are we fixing the outcome, or the underlying cause?
Which past successes no longer serve our future?
Which fundamental assumption have we been unwilling to challenge?
What decision would we make differently if we were building this organization from scratch today?
If the answer to the last question is "nothing," the crisis may not yet have become a learning experience.
Arama's great contribution is not his description of the first three stages — tranquility, complacency and decline. Every organization encounters them sooner or later.
His real insight is the fourth stage: understanding that a crisis is not the final stop but the first opportunity to begin thinking differently.
Great organizations are not those that never make mistakes. They are those that refuse to become trapped by who they were before the crisis. Instead, they use the crisis to become who they need to be afterward.
Moses does not ask the people to forget the wilderness, nor does he ask them to return to it. He asks them to carry its memory while leaving behind the mindset that kept them there — to make the past a teacher, not a prison.
Perhaps that is Rabbi Isaac Arama's most enduring definition of leadership: not the ability to avoid crises, but the ability to turn them into the starting point of the next chapter.