by Tyron Devotta
In chess, the middlegame is where positions are tested, weaknesses exposed, and outcomes are shaped. The opening may determine structure, and the endgame may decide the result, but it is in the middle game that strategy meets execution. Sri Lanka’s banking sector now finds itself at precisely such a point, with the National Development Bank (NDB) fraud brought into intense public scrutiny.
The predictable surge of negative media coverage and market speculation is being played out, following the initial shock of exposure of the bank’s loss of billions of rupees. The immediate defensive posture by NDB, limited comment, and containment is serving its purpose. However the media space is fraught with premature conclusions. The next step therefore, should be the phase for structured engagement. The question is no longer what happened. The question is how can the institution regain control of the (chess) board?
Clear Plan
In chess, the middlegame is about creating imbalances and executing a clear plan. It requires identifying weaknesses in the opponent’s position and applying pressure through well-timed tactics, and controlling key squares that dictate the flow of the game. Success does not come from random moves, but from purposeful, disciplined play that steadily increases advantage. In a crisis environment, the same principle applies. The opponent is not the media, the regulator, or the public. It is uncertainty, speculation, and the erosion of trust.
Every successful middlegame begins with identifying structural weaknesses. In the context of the NDB fraud case, these are not abstract concepts, but very real perception gaps and trust deficits. Public understanding of the scale and nature of the fraud remains uneven. Depositor anxiety, even if not immediately visible in behaviour, begins to simmer beneath the surface. Media narratives, driven by incomplete information, risk filling the vacuum left by verified disclosures. At the same time, questions around internal controls and oversight mechanisms create an impression of opacity. The first step is not denial, but diagnosis. Without a clear internal mapping of these vulnerabilities both real and perceived, communication risks becoming reactive and fragmented.
From that point, the institution must move from reaction to strategy. Amateur players make moves, but professionals execute plans. The communication framework must be anchored in stability, accountability, and system awareness. Stability reassures stakeholders that the fundamentals remain intact, that capital adequacy, liquidity, and day-to-day operations are not in question. Accountability demonstrates that the breach is being taken seriously, with investigations underway and corrective measures in motion. System awareness places the incident within a broader context, recognising that evolving financial systems, particularly in rapidly digitising economies, carry shared vulnerabilities that are not unique to a single institution.
Fragmentation is fatal
Coordination then becomes critical. In chess, even the most powerful pieces are ineffective when uncoordinated. In public relations, fragmentation is fatal. Leadership must speak with one voice, regulators such as the Central Bank of Sri Lanka must be actively engaged and visibly so, and media interaction must be selective and informed rather than reactive and shotgunned. Internal teams must be aligned and informed, ensuring that employees themselves do not become conduits of confusion. A single inconsistent message on social media by an employee can undo weeks of careful stabilisation.
At this stage, tactical clarity is essential. The middlegame rewards precision, not volume. Communication must be deliberate and targeted. The release of verifiable data on liquidity, capital strength, and operational continuity will do more to stabilise sentiment than broad assurances. Credibility is strengthened when reinforced by third-party validation, whether through regulatory engagement, independent audits, or industry expertise. Disclosure must be controlled and progressive, building trust without fuelling speculation. At the same time,the institution must begin to engage in thought leadership, contributing meaningfully to discussions on fraud risk, governance, and systemic safeguards.
The narrative must evolve
Equally important is the control of narrative space. In chess, control of central squares determines the direction of play. In crisis communication, this translates to public confidence, regulatory trust, and media framing. These spaces must be actively occupied. The conversation must shift from institutional vulnerability to sectoral resilience. Engagement at a policy level on tightening systemic loopholes becomes essential. Over time, the narrative must evolve from one of scandal to one of reform and strengthening the system.
As stability begins to take hold, the institution must transition from defence to measured assertion. This is where the opportunity for leadership emerges. The NDB case, rather than being treated as an isolated failure, can be positioned as a catalyst for industry-wide introspection. Working collaboratively with regulators and industry stakeholders to strengthen audit frameworks, close procedural loopholes, and enhance digital monitoring systems positions the bank not merely as a respondent to crisis, but as a contributor to reform. Public communication must reflect not only what is being corrected internally, but what is being improved across the system.
At the same time, attention must be given to improving the weakest internal links. In chess, victory often depends on strengthening the least effective piece. In this context, that means addressing gaps in internal communication, enhancing the visibility of risk management processes, modernising compliance frameworks, and confronting legacy vulnerabilities that may have enabled the breach. These are not simply operational fixes. They are the foundations of restored credibility.
Rebuild trust
Throughout this phase, the guiding mindset must remain clear. The objective is not to win a news cycle, nor to silence criticism through volume. It is to restore equilibrium and rebuild trust through consistency, clarity, and disciplined execution. The real opponent is not external scrutiny, but the instability that arises when confidence begins to erode. The middlegame is not about dramatic victories. It is about positional strength, built quietly and deliberately over time. For the National Development Bank, and indeed for Sri Lanka’s wider banking sector, this is a defining moment. Institutions that navigate this phase with strategic clarity and restraint will not merely survive the crisis. They will emerge from it with stronger systems, sharper governance, and renewed credibility. Handled correctly, this is not the phase where reputations are lost. It is the phase where they are redefined.
And then there is the endgame, but that is another story!