The 6 Days Nobody Writes About and Why Leadership Must Go Beyond the Apology
Masithokoze Moyo is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Angel Wings Aviation and the Masithokoze Foundation. She combines her expertise in aviation with a mission to empower youth and girls in under-resourced communities through skills development and mentorship.
We talk endlessly about resilience. We rarely talk about the week after. There is a particular kind of silence that follows a crisis. It is not always the silence of recovery. Sometimes, it is the silence that arrives when an institution considers the matter settled, while the person affected is still trying to put their life back together.
I know that silence intimately. In February 2025, a bank recorded me as deceased. Not metaphorically. In writing. My credit cards stopped working with a trolley full of shopping. Letters of condolence and final bills arrived addressed to my next of kin. My driving licence and passport were cancelled. I was given a death certificate number. I stood in a police station to prove that I was alive.
The error was corrected. The apology came. The compensation followed. Then everyone went back to work, and I was left in the seven days nobody writes about: the aftermath, when the file may be closed, but the consequences are not.
That experience left me with six lessons about what leadership should look like after the immediate crisis has passed.
1. A mistake is not closed when it is fixed
It is closed when the person is restored. An organisation may have a process for correcting an error without having an equally clear process for supporting the person affected. Rebuilding documents, credit records, access to services, and peace of mind can become the victim’s responsibility. They become their own case manager at the moment they most need help.
For leaders, the question is not simply, “Have we corrected our system?” It is, “What does this person still need to regain control of their life?”
2. Compensation does not restore a person
Compensation matters. But money alone cannot restore a sense of security or undo the distress of having to prove that you exist. In my experience, the payment did not mark the end of the consequences. A financial settlement and a human recovery are not the same thing.
Leaders should treat compensation as one part of the response, not a substitute for practical support and continued contact.
3. Speed is a form of respect
The letters I received were prompt. The apology was quick. It was the restoration that was slow. In a case like this, slowness is not neutral. Every day spent unable to prove who you are or use your own money carries a cost that cannot simply be refunded.
Urgency should extend beyond the apology. Give the person clear next steps, realistic timescales, and updates they do not have to chase.
4. If nobody owns it, nobody does it
After a catastrophic error, responsibility can fall into the gap between departments. Each team may complete its own task while nobody takes responsibility for the person’s overall recovery. That need not be malice. It can be an absence of ownership. But the person left in that gap still bears the consequences.
Assign one named person to coordinate the response, follow up on outstanding problems, and remain a reliable point of contact. Ownership should be visible to the person affected, not just recorded internally.
5. The person in front of you is the whole point
Behind an error is a human being whose life may have been turned upside down. An incident report cannot, on its own, tell you everything that person has lost. Bring their experience into the conversation. Ask what has changed, what remains unresolved, and what would genuinely help.
Do not assume that the organisation’s definition of “fixed” matches the person’s definition of “restored”. Let their answers shape the support you offer.
6. The story is not over during the 6 days nobody writes about
I was written off. I am still here. That is not a victory over a bank. It is a statement about what people are capable of carrying and how careless we can be with the weight we hand them.
Before closing a case, ask what remains unresolved. Agree on how the person can reach someone if problems resurface. Administrative closure should not mean the end of care.
Who is meant to look after them?
I want to leave you with a question I have not been able to get answered clearly. When an institution records a living person as dead, who takes responsibility for safeguarding them through the aftermath? Where should they turn for coordinated support? In my experience, I was left without a clear answer, an assigned person, or a plan for aftercare. There was a payment, and then there was silence.
Leaders in every sector should ask whether their own processes leave a similar gap. Whether you work in banking, healthcare, insurance, or utilities, the challenge is the same. Does your response stop at correcting the record, or does it help restore the life affected by it?
My book explores what begins after a crisis. I would rather use it to ask this question than simply celebrate survival. What do we owe people once the immediate emergency is over?
Resilience is not always an achievement to applaud. Sometimes, it is the cost of somebody else’s carelessness. It is the last thing we should be asking people to supply on their own.
The next time an error is declared resolved, ask one more question: “Is the person restored?” That is where leadership begins.
Read more from Masithokoze Moyo
Masithokoze Moyo, Aviation Professional-Entrepreneur & Philanthropist
Masithokoze Moyo is a Zimbabwean-British aviation entrepreneur, public figure, and private pilot who gained international attention following a high-profile banking error. She serves as the founder and CEO of TripleM Group Holdings (trading as Angel Wings Aviation), delivering custom private jet and helicopter charter services to global executives. Alongside her business leadership, Moyo is a dedicated social activist whose foundation empowers youth through STEM mentorship, supported by a career spanning public policy, development banking, and law enforcement.
