A branching, choose-your-path tabletop built for a publicly traded regional bank. No systems fail and no data is lost — the crisis is the person at the top of the escalation chain. Six shared injects establish the allegations, then the board's own decision — put the CEO on leave, or keep him in role — sends the exercise down one of two independent, fully-scripted paths. Neither one protects the board from scrutiny.
Every detail below is fictional — specific enough to feel real in the room, and generic enough to map onto almost any organization where one leader's reputation has become the company's reputation.
A NYSE-listed regional bank holding company headquartered in Minneapolis, with $31B in assets, 210 branches across five states, and ~4,800 employees. Eleven years ago it was a struggling thrift; today it is one of the best-performing banks in its peer group, and analysts credit almost all of that to the CEO who led the turnaround.
Ashby Ridge is four months into its largest acquisition yet — a pending purchase of Lakeshore Community Bank that still needs regulatory approval. The deal, the stock, and the strategy all run through one person. Which is exactly why an allegation about that person is a crisis for the whole institution.
Six injects, delivered over the first 42 hours, that every player experiences regardless of what the board ultimately decides. This phase ends with the decision that splits the exercise in two.
A reporter at a national business outlet emails Ashby Ridge's head of communications. A former executive vice president of commercial banking alleges the CEO harassed her and then forced her out after she complained. The story runs in two days, and the reporter wants comment by 5 p.m. tomorrow.
The general counsel pulls the records. The executive filed an internal complaint fourteen months ago. It was reviewed by an HR team reporting to the CEO's chief of staff and closed as unsubstantiated. Three months later she left with a $1.2M separation agreement and a non-disclosure clause, approved by the CEO. The board's compensation committee was never told.
The CEO denies everything. He calls the former executive a disgruntled low performer, wants to issue a forceful denial before the story runs, and asks the general counsel — his direct report — to threaten the outlet with a defamation suit.
The reporter tells communications that two current employees have contacted her with similar accounts. Meanwhile, a post on an anonymous workplace app — "Is the story about our CEO finally coming out?" — has hundreds of replies from people listing Ashby Ridge as their employer.
The independent chair calls an emergency session of the independent directors. Outside counsel recommends forming a special committee and retaining an independent investigator. The Lakeshore application is still pending, and the bank's regulatory relationship manager has a routine call on the calendar for Day 3.
The story publishes in 30 hours. Outside counsel lays out two options: place the CEO on leave pending the independent investigation, with the CFO as interim CEO; or keep him in role, walled off from anything touching the investigation. Halvorsen Capital has privately called the chair to back the CEO. Several directors worry that leave will look like a verdict. The board has to decide.
From here, the facilitator runs one of two fully independent scripts depending on what the board chose in Inject 6. Toggle between them below to see how each one unfolds — in a live session, players only ever see the one they earned.
Ashby Ridge announces that the CEO is on leave pending an independent review, with the CFO serving as interim CEO. Within an hour, the CEO's personal lawyer calls the decision a rush to judgment and notes that his employment agreement allows him to resign for "good reason" if his duties are materially reduced.
The stock opens down 14%. Analysts question whether the Lakeshore deal survives without its architect. Halvorsen Capital issues a public statement criticizing the board for "sidelining proven leadership on the strength of a newspaper story."
The regulatory relationship manager asks who is running the bank, whether the Lakeshore integration plan depended on the CEO personally, and when the board first learned of the original complaint. She requests the minutes of every board meeting held since Day 0.
Two senior executives loyal to the CEO tell the interim CEO they're considering resigning. Then treasury flags a problem: the bank's delegations of authority still name the CEO for approvals above $50M, and a large credit decision is due Friday.
The CEO gives an interview defending his record. He references the former executive's performance reviews by name — confidential personnel information he still had access to. Her lawyer calls it textbook retaliation, on the record.
The independent investigators report a second issue: over three years, the CEO used the company aircraft for personal trips that were never reported as perquisites in the proxy statement. It's now a securities disclosure question as well as a conduct question.
At an all-hands meeting, the interim CEO is asked whether other employees were paid to stay silent — and whether the board will release former employees from their non-disclosure agreements. The question is recorded and posted online within the hour.
Lakeshore Community Bank's board sends a letter citing "material uncertainty in the acquirer's leadership" and asks to reopen deal terms. Its CEO tells reporters only that his board is "evaluating all options."
The investigators' interim findings: the harassment allegation can't be fully corroborated, but the retaliation, the concealed settlement, and the aircraft use are substantiated. The board must choose — terminate for cause and fight the contract claims, negotiate a quiet departure, or reinstate the CEO with conditions. The board has to decide.
A proxy advisory firm recommends voting against the compensation committee chair at the next annual meeting, asking why no director knew about a $1.2M settlement with a senior executive. Reporters start asking the same question.
Ashby Ridge announces a special committee and independent investigation, and says the board has "full confidence" in the CEO, who will recuse himself from investigation matters. The story publishes the next morning with that statement in the fourth paragraph.
The reporter's follow-up names the $1.2M separation payment and the NDA and asks a single question: did the board know? It didn't. The answer either way is a headline.
An open letter signed by more than 300 employees asks the board to place the CEO on leave until the investigation concludes. By evening, it's been shared with the reporter.
The regulatory relationship manager asks how an investigation can be independent when the CEO still oversees the general counsel, HR, and the systems that hold the evidence. She asks for written confirmation of document preservation measures by Friday.
The investigators' forensic review shows that the CEO's chief of staff deleted a set of messages from a company phone the evening the reporter's email arrived. It's unclear who asked her to — or whether anyone did.
A second former employee goes on the record in a follow-up story, describing similar conduct and a similar exit. The article quotes the board's "full confidence" statement in its opening paragraph.
A city treasury office pauses new deposits "pending review of governance concerns," and a state pension fund sends a letter questioning board oversight. Commercial bankers report clients asking whether the bank is stable.
The independent chair now wants the CEO on leave. Two long-tenured directors refuse, arguing that reversing course now would be an admission. A third director drafts a resignation letter that would cite "governance failures" publicly.
Halvorsen Capital, the CEO's strongest backer on Day 2, now publicly demands his departure and two new independent directors, and threatens a proxy contest. The board faces the decision it declined a week ago — remove the CEO before the investigation concludes — on far worse terms. The board has to decide.
The regulator signals that the Lakeshore application won't move forward until management and governance questions are resolved. Lakeshore agrees to extend its deadline once, for 60 days. The CEO question can be settled in a week; rebuilding the board's credibility will take far longer.
The two paths are built to converge on the same hard questions, arrived at from opposite directions.
The full Ashby Ridge scenario — every inject, both paths, and the debrief questions — is available as a print-ready PDF you can share with your own team or board. Enter your email and we'll take you straight to the download.
The Ashby Ridge exercise is a sample — built to show how a leadership crisis simulation can branch on the decision that actually matters, and stay uncomfortable in both directions. A simulation built for your organization starts with your governance, your escalation paths, and your board.
Exercises often require access to crisis plans, escalation structures, and vulnerabilities. That material is handled in confidence, and NDAs are available on request.
Talk to us about a custom simulation →
The Crisis Studio