When I decided to create a COVID-19 version of the ‘If-’ Sixteen Leadership Framework, the first name I picked was Dr. Anthony Fauci. On July 31st (the day I decided to create this list), Dr. Fauci and other experts were testifying before Congress on the state of America’s COVID efforts. For months, Fauci had been fighting to ensure that the truth about the Coronavirus and COVID-19 were informing the president’s and other leaders’ decisions. Time and again, Fauci would use his expertise and that of his colleagues to describe the prudent actions the American people should take (individually and collectively) to fight this pandemic. His expert advice would often be contradicted or misinterpreted by the same leaders he was trying to advise. Fauci’s situation brought to mind Rudyard Kipling’s words (paraphrased): How do you “bear to hear the truths you’ve spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools?”
One of the greatest indicators of integrity is the willingness to speak truth to power, and this has been a defining quality of Dr. Anthony Fauci during the COVID-19 crisis. However, as I emphasized in my book, If You Will Lead (Agate B2 2011), integrity goes far beyond truth-telling, even beyond speaking truth to power. At the very heart of integrity is the willingness to seek out and defend the truth – and defending the truth often requires us to live out our values and expose them to the scrutiny of others. Leading with integrity means more than just objectively sharing facts. It means using our expertise and values to assess the information we have, in order to help others make sense of it. In the case of COVID-19, leading with integrity has meant trusting the facts and science no matter what. For Dr. Fauci, leading with his values has put him at odds with the president and his administration.
Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, Fauci has shared his expert advice and guidance honestly. This expertise has been dismissed repeatedly by the president and other policymakers and leaders (most of whom lack the expertise to do so credibly). Dr. Fauci has been willing to put his reputation and career on the line to defend the truth. Some would argue that he could retire anytime he wants, so it is easy for him to risk a career that is at its end, yet those who know Anthony Fauci have seen this behavior throughout his career. (See The Atlantic article from March 13th, 2020.) Whether it was AIDS, Ebola, SARS, or Zika, Dr. Fauci has been willing to challenge others. He has challenged presidents, cabinet secretaries, other medical professionals, and advocates. He has built his reputation on a strong track record of using science and facts to seek and defend the truth, and on many occasions has acknowledged his mistakes and reversed himself when the science has proved him wrong. His integrity has been a driving force behind his successful leadership as NIH’s top infectious disease expert for almost 40 years and across six presidential administrations.
The AIDS crisis provided Fauci with his first public opportunity to lead with integrity. He publicly criticized decisions he felt were not supported by the science. His integrity earned him the ire (and ultimately the respect) of several presidents. In evaluating more aggressive and experimental AIDS treatments, Fauci epitomized the adage that real integrity is not the choice between right and wrong or good and evil. Often integrity means choosing between two equally good or equally bad options. During the early days of AIDS treatments, Fauci demonstrated that kind of integrity when he advocated for the approval of experimental drugs that had the risk of significant side effects. AIDS advocates praised him for this choice because he accepted short-term risks to save lives.
The COVID-19 pandemic has elevated Fauci to an extraordinary level of public recognition and scrutiny. Many of his harshest critics have accused him of politicizing the science and of self-aggrandizement. However, Fauci has retained public support by speaking truthfully and supporting his positions with facts and hard science (e.g., vaccine timelines, the severity of the pandemic, testing protocols, containment strategies, etc.). He has also willingly acknowledged his errors. While he still believes it was the right thing to do, Fauci has admitted that his early guidance regarding the widespread use of masks had unintended consequences. His effort to help front-line workers get access to personal protective equipment (PPE) created misperception about the efficacy of public PPE usage (specifically masks) in containing the pandemic.
Leading with integrity is never easy, and Dr. Anthony Fauci has earned this spot on the COVID-19 ‘If–‘ Sixteen list because of his willingness to seek and know the truth, and his courage to speak those truths to those who at best want to ignore him and at worst want to twist his words to “make a trap for fools.” Leading with integrity goes far beyond simply speaking the truth; it means understanding that doing so may challenge our values and the values of key stakeholders. As such, defending one set of values may put another set of values in jeopardy. For Dr. Fauci, this has put him in direct conflict with the President of the United States.
Integrity obviously does not stand alone. Integrity requires that we first understand our character and the core values we will defend (see Angela Merkel) and that we act with authenticity, leading in a way that reveals our values to those we wish to lead (see Leo Varadkar).
Who else is leading with integrity? What other world leaders are demonstrating this often-misunderstood leadership attribute? What about at the local level? Who do you see leading with integrity? Share your thoughts here.
