The rains came: A case for storm-tested leadership

Readers of Louis Bromfield's The Rains Came often remember the novel for its dramatic setting. An earthquake devastates the fictional Indian state of Ranchipur, floods follow and the established order is thrown into disarray. Yet the lasting power of the novel lies less in the catastrophe itself than in Bromfield’s portrayal of how people respond when the assumptions underpinning their lives, including social standing, reputation and expectations for the future, suddenly disappear.

Before disaster strikes, Ranchipur appears settled and its citizens’ futures largely predictable. Those who occupy positions of influence seem secure in their standing until the earthquake arrives, and rising waters begin to erode long-held certainties. As events unfold, the individuals who prove most valuable are not always those who appeared most important beforehand, while some who seemed strongest are revealed to be surprisingly fragile once circumstances turn against them.

Nearly a century after its publication, the novel offers an observation that remains relevant far beyond its original setting. Difficult periods do not necessarily change people or institutions as much as they reveal them. Strengths, weaknesses, habits and decisions that may go unnoticed during favorable conditions often become visible only when circumstances change. It is a lesson that resonates well beyond literature and into the boardroom.

Much of a board’s work involves evaluating leadership through outcomes. Revenue growth, operating margins, market share, shareholder returns and strategic milestones all help answer an important question: Is the organization performing as expected? These measures provide discipline and accountability, and they remain essential to effective governance.

Most directors and trustees, however, have encountered situations in which outcomes alone provided an incomplete picture. Favorable market conditions can make ordinary management appear exceptional, while capable leaders sometimes face circumstances that make success harder to achieve and more difficult to measure. The more challenging task is determining how much of an outcome reflects leadership and how much reflects circumstance. Strong results do not always indicate strong leadership, just as disappointing results do not always reflect weak leadership.

Recent years have brought that distinction into sharper focus. Supply chain disruptions, inflation, labor shortages, geopolitical uncertainty, shifting regulatory environments and rapid technological change have forced leadership teams to spend less time executing established plans and more time responding to events beyond their control. In periods like these, performance measures alone tell only part of the story.

Consider two executives whose organizations arrive at similar financial results. One benefits from strong demand, readily available resources and favorable market conditions. The other achieves comparable outcomes while retaining key talent, maintaining critical relationships, preserving organizational credibility and making investments that may not produce immediate returns yet strengthen the organization over time. Viewed from a distance, their performance may appear nearly identical. Viewed more closely, the quality of leadership may be quite different.

That distinction helps explain the value of storm-tested leadership. The term is less about how leaders perform during a crisis than about the decisions they make before one occurs. By the time an organization faces significant disruption, many of the factors that shape its response are already in place. Leadership teams have been built, succession plans established or neglected, key risks addressed or deferred, and organizational trust either strengthened or allowed to erode. When pressure arrives, these choices become visible.

Boards often find that the organizations best equipped to withstand disruption are not necessarily those that generated the strongest short-term results. More often, they are organizations whose leaders consistently invested in capability, discipline and long-term health even when those investments offered little immediate recognition or reward.

That reality creates a tension for compensation committees. Annual incentives appropriately reward the achievement of short-term goals, while long-term incentive plans are intended to recognize the creation of sustained value. Both are essential, yet some of the decisions that matter most become apparent only when circumstances change. Building a strong leadership team, strengthening governance, preserving culture, maintaining credibility and retaining the flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges may not be fully reflected in annual results or multi-year performance measures. Over time, however, these investments often determine whether an organization merely performs well in favorable conditions or remains strong when circumstances become more difficult.

A committee can address this gap without abandoning objective measures. For example, the individual component of an annual incentive could include a small set of pre-established leadership objectives, such as building executive bench strength, improving succession readiness, retaining critical talent or strengthening organizational resilience, with the committee documenting at year-end the evidence supporting its assessment. The same considerations could inform upward or downward adjustments within a defined range or broader pay decisions, provided the committee applies them consistently and explains how the judgment relates to the organization’s long-term health rather than simply revisiting results after the fact.

The lesson is not that metrics should become secondary. Rather, boards should think more broadly about the nature of performance itself. Strong performance is not defined solely by what was achieved during a given year. It is also reflected in the condition of the organization after those results have been delivered. Is the enterprise stronger? Has its capacity increased? Is it better prepared for future challenges? Has leadership expanded the organization’s options or narrowed them? These questions become more important when conditions are less predictable, and future success depends as much on organizational strength as incentive plan results.

In that respect, Bromfield's novel contains a lesson that remains surprisingly contemporary. The true measure of leadership is often hardest to assess when circumstances are favorable. Success can conceal weaknesses just as adversity can illuminate strengths. Only when conditions change does a clearer picture emerge of the decisions, judgments and priorities that have been shaping an organization all along.

For boards and compensation committees, that distinction matters. The objective is not simply to reward favorable outcomes during favorable times, but to recognize the leadership that makes those outcomes sustainable when conditions change.

In The Rains Came, the earthquake and flood did not create Ranchipur’s strengths and weaknesses. They simply made them impossible to ignore. Modern organizations face different challenges, but the principle remains the same. Eventually, every organization encounters conditions it did not anticipate. When that happens, the organizations that fare best are often those led by individuals who spent years building the capacity, trust and judgment needed to withstand the storm long before the first clouds appeared.