On March 17th, 2020 – St. Patrick’s Day – Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s Prime Minister, addressed his country about the COVID-19 pandemic. A record 1.6 million people tuned in to watch this speech. Afterward, critics described the speech as somber, stark, chilling, and even ominous, but many hailed it as the exact message that the Irish people needed to hear to prepare themselves for the looming crisis.
Varadkar stood before his country and described the challenge they were confronting, and the immediate steps that his government would be taking to combat the pandemic. So what prompted the largest audience in Irish history to turn on their televisions to watch this speech? More importantly, how was Leo Varadkar able to convince the Irish people to embrace the precautions that he outlined in his speech? There are plenty of reasons why this speech should have been ignored. First, the speech was delivered early in the COVID-19 crisis. The World Health Organization (WHO) had only declared a pandemic six days before the speech. Second, Ireland, like many other countries, had been virtually untouched at that point, with only 54 cases and no deaths. Finally, Varadkar was a lame duck. His party had recently lost its majority in the Irish Parliament, and he was an interim Prime Minister while a new government was being formed. In some ways, this made it easy for him to lead authentically and do what he thought was right. However, Varadkar was also negotiating to be part of a coalition for the next government, so he had every reason to play it safe and defer to the next government to act.
Despite these factors, Varadkar delivered a speech that mobilized the Irish people. I believe Varadkar’s effectiveness on March 17th was in large measure a function of his authenticity as a leader. When I say he led authentically, I mean he remained himself in the face of this unprecedented crisis. He knew who he was, and he spoke in a way that revealed the essence of his character, which enabled him to be the leader that the Irish people needed at that moment.
Varadkar spoke as the Prime Minister, and he used the authority of his office to articulate his government’s plan. While he was just a placeholder during this interim period, he never acted like one. He saw it as his duty to serve the Irish people during the transition, just as he had served them during the previous three years. He led as the Prime Minister, not the interim Prime Minister. He spoke with the authority of the office, because that is what the Irish people needed from him. It would have been understandable for Varadkar to have acted less boldly, pushing these difficult decisions (and the accountability for them) onto his successor. Instead, he spoke authentically with the authority of his office, and by doing so, he strengthened the Irish people’s confidence in their government.
Varadkar also spoke as an expert. While he never mentioned his medical degree, his expertise (and trust in the expertise of medical professional) was obvious throughout the speech. This expertise gave him the credibility to defend the aggressive moves the Irish government was undertaking. He used authentic expertise to buttress public trust in the medical experts and their sense of urgency. He was able to transform that urgency into a bold plan that the Irish citizens embraced.
Finally, Varadkar spoke as a human being whose loved ones were in danger. Several members of his immediate family are physicians, including his partner. They were in the COVID-19 frontlines. By integrating his personal feelings and concerns about the risk COVID-19 created, he was able to speak directly to the fears and uncertainty many of his fellow citizens were feeling.
Both his trust in the experts and his personal stake in managing the spread of the virus were evident in Varadkar’s March 17th speech and in his subsequent communications with the Irish people. Ireland has had mixed results in terms of managing COVID-19, and their early successes are an indication of Varadkar’s leadership. Ireland’s initial coherent response saved lives. Varadkar’s leadership made that happen. Recent COVID failures and setbacks under the current Prime Minister, Micheál Martin, seem to be related to changes in direction.
Varadkar had one additional opportunity to lead authentically. As a physician, he possessed critical skills that were in limited supply, so in April he announced that he would offer his services to the country’s Health Service Executive (HSE) for one session a week. While it was obvious that one shift each week wasn’t going to make a dent in the demand for medical care generated by COVID-19, his action set an example of the type of sacrifice and service this crisis demands.
President Theodore Roosevelt represented Authentic leadership on my original list, and I have made a case for Leo Varadkar as an exemplar of Authentic Leadership for the COVID-19 ‘If–’ Sixteen, joining Angela Merkel who represents leading with Character. He teaches us the importance of remaining ourselves no matter what.
I am sure there are many more leaders who can teach us similar lessons. Who else has been leading with authenticity? What other leaders have remained true to themselves and become the leader the pandemic demanded? Who else has risen to this challenge?
