New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is an obvious choice for inclusion on the COVID-19 version of the ‘If-‘Sixteen Leaders – although it is difficult to decide which attribute she represents best. Ardern has led with boldness, courage, accountability, composure, and selflessness. I ultimately chose Self-Efficacy as the attribute she best exemplified after watching more than twenty of her interviews and Facebook Live videos. In every video and interview I observed, she exuded extraordinary self-confidence. This is not the arrogance or bluster that has been the hallmark of many failed leaders; rather, she has shown the type of confidence needed to tell her people the hard truths that fighting COVID-19 has required. Ardern’s self-efficacy seems to be rooted in her belief in her capacity to lead New Zealand to overcome and endure, no matter what this crisis brings. This is the essence of Self-Efficacy. While other world leaders were dithering and struggling to establish a coherent strategy, Jacinda Ardern was moving aggressively, repeating her COVID leadership mantra – “go hard and go early.” This statement captured the gist of New Zealand’s COVID-19 strategy, an immediate and absolute nationwide lockdown. Her approach was bold, and many believed it was recklessly so. During her March 23rd press conference announcing New Zealand’s lockdown, Ardern acknowledged her critics’ concerns, while emphasizing her confidence in her nation’s ability to endure. She declared, “These are all tools of last resort, at a time when I know New Zealanders will rally — because that is what we do.” She ended that speech with these words, “So, New Zealand: be calm, be kind, stay at home, and break the chain.” Ardern’s words are reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s confidence-inspiring speeches during the early days of the Second World War. Coincidentally, Churchill is the exemplar of Self-Efficacy from the original ‘If-‘ Sixteen list. Like Churchill, Ardern recognized that her confidence was meaningless unless she inspired the confidence of those she was leading. This required her to invest significant time and energy in communicating with New Zealanders and keeping them engaged and confident. Ardern’s communication approach has worked. It has demonstrated her confidence and commitment to her COVID plan, and it has bolstered New Zealanders’ confidence. Her recent reelection as Prime Minister is the most obvious measure of this confidence, but her success was apparent almost immediately. The reaction to the lockdown was swift and generally positive. Most New Zealanders quickly accepted the government-imposed restrictions. During the more than five weeks of the lockdown, fewer than 4,000 people (in a country of 5 million) were cited for violating the lockdown rules. Compare that to the difficulty the U.S. has had getting people simply to wear masks. Throughout the pandemic, Ardern and her government have enjoyed strong approval ratings, with Ardern’s rating ranging from 55% to 65% since March. Before the pandemic, Ardern was struggling with approval ratings closer to 40%. New Zealanders’ rating of their government’s handling of the pandemic has ranged between 75% and 85%. Ardern has communicated effectively, and she has kept the people of New Zealand informed and engaged. While she has used traditional communication channels (e.g., press conferences, interviews, etc.) to get her message out, she has also embraced social media. Ardern has shared over 150 videos via Facebook, including scores of Facebook Live videos from her home. These video messages provided updates about the pandemic, but they also helped Ardern stay connected and engaged with her people. Many have compared these videos to Franklin Roosevelt’s “Fireside Chats.” Just as Roosevelt had the confidence to embrace the new media of radio to connect with the American people during the Great Depression, Ardern has used live video to sustain and build the confidence of New Zealanders. During her typical videos, Ardern used a combination of optimism and realism. During her March 25th Facebook Live message, she set expectations for the days and weeks ahead. She encouraged New Zealanders not to be “disheartened by the initial spike” that she knew was likely, and she ended by repeating her encouragement to, “Stay home, break the chain, and you’ll save lives.” These words reminded each New Zealander that this was their personal responsibility. Ardern has repeatedly demonstrated that the words we use matter when instilling confidence. On June 8th, the day New Zealand announced no active cases in the country, Ardern continued to send messages that expressed confidence and caution. She stated, “We are confident we have eliminated the transmission of the virus in New Zealand for now.” She reminded her people that the threat had not been eliminated, but their plan was successful. Ardern stated, “We will almost certainly see cases again, and that is not a sign that we have failed. It is a reality of this virus.” She ended by reminding people that “We are prepared.” Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark described the feeling that Ardern’s leadership has instilled, stating, “They may even think, Well, I don’t quite understand why [the government] did that, but I know she’s got our back. There’s a high level of trust and confidence in her because of that empathy.” The support and confidence of New Zealanders have been far from universal. Throughout the pandemic, Ardern’s critics have accused her of overreacting to the pandemic. Most critics voiced concerns about the economic impact the lockdown would cause. As predicted, New Zealand did experience a severe economic downturn, facing its worst recession since 1987 due to the pandemic and the lockdown. In the second quarter of 2020, its economy shrank by 11% compared to the second quarter of 2019. However, the economic impact was short-lived, with the economy growing by 14% in the 3rd quarter (https://www.ft.com/content/b8c4ab58-99db-4af2-9449-5fd70a9235ce). New Zealand’s initial downturn was comparable to the United States, whose economy shrank by approximately 9% in the second quarter and grew by 7% in the third quarter. However, when you compare their death rates, the story becomes more compelling. According to the WHO COVID-19 dashboard (https://covid19.who.int) for January 4th, 2021, New Zealand’s COVID death rate was 5.18 deaths per million, while the COVID death rate in the U.S. was 1050 deaths per million. New Zealand still faces daunting challenges to building its economy, but its successes have silenced many of Ardern’s critics. Dr. Albert Bandura was the first psychologist to study and describe the concept of Self-Efficacy. He described it as “the belief in one’s abilities to organize and execute the courses of action to manage prospective situations.” In my book, If You Will Lead (Agate 2011), I distinguish between Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem. The critical difference is that the confidence that Self-Efficacy produces is well-grounded. Jacinda Ardern didn’t just wake up and say, “I believe in myself. I can do anything I put my mind to.” In fact, she admitted in a recent Guardian article that she often struggles with self-doubt and “imposter syndrome.” Ardern spoke of channeling “her self-doubt into a positive.” She also spoke of using the feeling associated with self-doubt to focus her attention and to encourage collaboration. Despite her self-doubt and “imposter syndrome,” Ardern has demonstrated a self-confidence that is rooted in her past experiences and successes (and those of the leaders around her). Throughout the crisis, she has drawn on her own experiences and the expertise of others. Like all of the ‘If-‘ Sixteen Leadership attributes, leading with Self-Efficacy goes beyond simply possessing Self-Efficacy. Leading with Self-Efficacy requires that we instill our own grounded confidence in those we are leading. Jacinda Ardern has done this throughout the COVID-19 crisis. She has given assurance to the people she serves, and she has set an example for other world leaders to follow. Who else is leading with Self-Efficacy? Whose grounded self-confidence is inspiring others to make hard choices to fight COVID-19? Remember, we are looking for leaders at all levels, so share examples of local, national, and international leaders who exemplify Self-Efficacy.
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.
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?
Chancellor Angela Merkel is the first leader to make the list of the COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen leaders. For almost 15 years, she has led her country with a strong sense of who she is, remaining true to herself no matter what. Her self-awareness has enabled her to lead Germany through extraordinary challenges, including the 2008 Economic Crisis, the European Refugee Crisis, and now the COVID-19 Crisis. Character was the first leadership attribute I discussed in If You Will Lead: Enduring Wisdom for 21st-Century Leaders (Agate B2 2011), because character forms the foundation upon which all other leadership attributes are built. Leadership demands that we act in ways that are consistent and aligned with our beliefs and values. That is the essence of leading with character—knowing what we believe and value and then ensuring that our actions reflect those beliefs and values. Crises are the greatest leadership character tests, and Chancellor Merkel proved her character during the early days of the COVID-19 Crisis. While she continues to lead effectively, this article focuses on her actions and leadership during the pandemic’s early days. There are three aspects of Merkel’s character that seem most relevant: her commitment to liberty and freedom, her scientific mind, and her gender. The German culture is very conscious of recognizing and attributing titles in a way that often describe key aspects of one’s character. To many non-Germans, this behavior can seem awkward, especially when someone has numerous honorifics. In the case of Angela Merkel, she is Frau Chancellor Doctor Merkel. This may seem like an odd point, but I see all three honorifics as essential to Angela Merkel’s character and her leadership. Chancellor Merkel’s Commitment to Liberty and Freedom I’ll start with Chancellor, because, above all else, Angela Merkel is a politician. Merkel was quick to recognize that COVID-19 was an unprecedented threat. On March 18, she declared to the German people, “Since German unification, no, since World War II, there has been no greater challenge to our country that depends so much on us acting together in solidarity.” Merkel demonstrated clearly her commitment to the health and safety of her citizens, and she was willing to sacrifice other key values to protect her people. To do so, the German government took steps that curtailed liberty and freedom. This was an extraordinary test of her character, because Merkel had experienced 35 years of repression under East German government during the Cold War. She had spent much of her political career defending freedom and liberty. This life-long commitment bolstered her credibility with the German people that a short-term sacrifice was a reasonable price to pay to contain the spread of COVID-19. Fiscal responsibility is another important aspect of Chancellor Merkel’s political character. She has spent most of her political career as a fervent believer in government frugality, and her leadership was a driving force behind the EU austerity measures following the 2008 Economic Crisis. Again, COVID-19 forced her to confront conflicting values, and she put safety above frugality. In light of the societal risks posed by COVID-19, Merkel has been a champion for the EU economic stimulus efforts. She recognized that the economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic threatened to undermine European stability. She saw this instability as a threat to freedom, so she sacrificed her natural frugality and austerity to protect freedom. Doctor Merkel’s Scientific Mind Angela Merkel started her career as a scientist. She earned the title doctor when she received her Ph.D. in Quantum Chemistry. As a scientist, she learned to rely on data, critical thinking, and rational analysis to inform her decisions. This means asking hard questions to ensure that those we trust are worthy of our trust. It means knowing that what we want is not always consistent with what the data tell us. It means using the guidance of trusted experts to make hard and often unpopular decisions. When many leaders were dithering, Merkel engaged experts from organizations like the Robert Koch Institute and the Berlin’s Charité Hospital to inform her decisions and to help her create appropriate responses. Her trust in science and scientists enabled her to build the trust of the German people. Frau Merkel’s Feminine Leadership Merkel’s last honorific, Frau, has also played an important role in her leadership style. Merkel has never shied away from her gender. She has always embraced her political nickname “Mutti” (i.e., Mommy in English). There have been numerous articles highlighting the benefits of female leadership during the COVID-19 Crisis. Leadership traits like empathy, compassion, collaboration, and humility are often associated with femininity, and these same leadership traits seem to be producing positive results in the fight against COVID-19. Merkel has demonstrated these traits throughout her career, and she has continued to do so during the COVID-19 Crisis. There is much speculation about the role gender is playing in COVID-19 leadership. I will not add to this speculation, as this topic is far too complex to be addressed in this short piece. However, I will highlight some impressive anecdotal evidence supporting the case. Under Merkel’s leadership, Germany has seen much lower infection and death rates than France, the UK, Italy, and Spain – countries all led by men. Of the twenty-three nations led by women, only five have infection/death rates higher than the international mean. Some woman-led nations have seen exceptional results. New Zealand, Finland, Greece, Georgia, and Slovakia have had infection rates less than half of the global average (Source: WHO Coronavirus Dashboard). I believe these successes may reveal some important information about the benefits of feminine leadership, and I will discuss some of these strong female leaders in subsequent posts. Results of Leading with Character So how well did Angela Merkel’s leadership serve Germany in its efforts to confront the COVID-19 Crisis? Let’s start by looking at what those efforts entail. On March 22, Chancellor Merkel announced Germany’s plan for a “contact ban” that limited public gatherings to two people (outside families), required social distancing, and closed non-essential businesses. While the contact ban was not a lockdown, Merkel made a personal appeal to all Germans to act responsibly. She connected with the German people by speaking and acting in ways that demonstrated the true nature of her character. According to WHO data, Germany’s efforts and Merkel’s leadership paid off. By May 1, Germany was reporting approximately 1,600 cases per day – down from a peak in March of 6,800 cases per day. Based on these trends, the German government began a gradual easing of physical distancing measures. While the relaxation of physical distancing this summer led to an increase in new infections, Germany’s infection and death rates remain low. On September 23, the WHO reported daily new infections for the previous week of less than 1,800, indicating that Germany’s efforts and Merkel’s leadership continue to benefit Germany and its people. In comparison, during the same week, the much smaller nations of France, Spain, and the UK all saw significantly more daily new cases – approximately 10,000, 5,700, and 4,000, respectively. Angela Merkel knows who she is and what she values and believes. This allows her to trust herself to make hard decisions informed by those values and beliefs. This self-confidence enables her to build trust with those she leads. During her almost 15 years as Chancellor, she has demonstrated how strong leadership rooted in character can lead a nation through a crisis. While the COVID-19 Crisis is far from over, Angela Merkel is integrating all the pieces of her character to provide leadership and solutions that save lives. Who else has been leading with character? What other leaders have used their values and beliefs to inspire others to combat the pandemic? Who has risen to this challenge? Remember to think local and share stories we may not have heard.
Crises test leaders. We all know this, and the new normal created by COVID-19 is proving that maxim every day. The news is full of examples of leadership greatness and leadership failures. Like many, I found myself getting sucked into the emotional swamp of the endless failures and disappointments. My wife, Laurie, encouraged me to find and celebrate the great leaders and leadership we have observed over the past few months. She inspired me to consciously change my focus and create a list of the COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen leaders. An ‘If–’ Sixteen Refresher: The concept of the ‘If–’ Sixteen comes from my book, If You Will Lead: Enduring Wisdom for 21st-Century Leaders(Agate B2, 2011). Based on Rudyard Kipling’s poem ‘If—’, the book identifies an essential leadership attribute associated with each of the poem’s sixteen couplets. Together, the ‘If–’ Sixteen define a path we may choose to follow to become better leaders. By incorporating the concept of “awareness and choice,” they form a comprehensive leadership structure that is timeless. The original ‘If–’ Sixteen are some of history’s greatest leaders, including giants like George Washington, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mother Theresa. I picked the original ‘If–’ Sixteen leaders because they led in ways that exemplified these leadership attributes described in the poem: Character – The Wisdom to Know and Trust Yourself Authenticity – The Resolve Always to Be Yourself Integrity – The Wisdom to Know the Truth and the Strength to Defend It Self-Efficacy – The Confidence to Gain from Triumph and Disaster Ambition – The Will to Make the World What You Want It to Be Vision – The Power of Having and Sharing a Dream Boldness – The Ability to See and Seize Opportunities Resilience – The Ability to Bounce Back from Adversity Inspiration – The Ability to Connect with and Motivate Friends & Foes Courage – The Ability to Face the Dangers When They Become Real Selflessness – The Ability to Put Your Cause and Beliefs Ahead of Yourself Stamina – The Will and Energy to Hold On Composure – The Power to Keep Your Head Patience – The Strength and Will to Endure and Wait Enthusiasm – The Energy to Fill Every Minute Accountability – The Will to Take Ownership Regardless of the Outcome As a lover of history, I largely chose historical figures who represented these leadership attributes. Only James and Louise Mulligan – whose stamina carried them through his seven-year internment as a North Vietnamese POW – are still living. I began considering which present-day leaders would comprise a modern ‘If–’ Sixteen. COVID ‘IF–’ SIXTEEN LEADERS I started compiling the COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen by prowling the internet for stories of leaders who have risen to the COVID challenge. Some names jumped up and screamed at me. Consider the boldness of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as she moved aggressively to seal New Zealand’s border while many world leaders dithered about how to respond. Or think about the integrity of Dr. Anthony Fauci as he defended the truth about how best to combat COVID-19 despite those who wished to ignore or silence him. Other leaders have shown a wide range of attributes. This crisis has also demanded more of some attributes than others. For example, I have been awed by the number of stories about leadership boldness and courage. So, this process of choosing a COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen will be hard, and it will be dynamic. Here’s the good news. In my first two hours of searching, I identified forty-seven worthy leaders for the sixteen slots. In the past weeks, I have found dozens more. With so many great leaders out there – and many of them not showing up on an internet search – I plan to make this an interactive process. I will provide the description of each of the ‘If–’ Sixteen attributes and the leader who held the spot on my original list. I will identify one current leader who could represent each attribute. The rest is up to you. I will invite readers to identify other leaders who exemplify the leadership attribute for them. Hopefully, we will end up with dozens of examples of leaders who inspire us to lead as they do. If it works the way I hope, this process will introduce us to new leaders and expose us to new aspects of well-known leaders. As you consider this list, be mindful not to limit yourself to leaders you like or whose beliefs align with your own. Don’t be offended if I write about someone you believe to be mistaken or wrong. While writing If You Will Lead, I learned more from the leaders with whom I disagreed than those with whom I was closely aligned. I know that all of the original ‘If–’ Sixteen leaders have baggage – they were human with all its imperfections. The COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen leaders will also have their own flaws. Be willing to accept those flaws and learn from every leader and every story. Stay open and be curious, so that you can learn from each leader and become a stronger leader in your own right. So here we go! ‘If–’ Sixteen Leadership Attribute #1: Character – The Wisdom to Know and Trust YourselfRonald Reagan holds this spot on my original list because of his willingness and ability to lead in a way that demonstrated who he was. His leadership was deeply rooted in his values, beliefs, and principles. For the COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen, I chose Chancellor Angela Merkel to represent character, because her leadership (especially during the COVID-19 crisis) has demonstrated her core values and beliefs. In my next post, I will further explain why I chose Chancellor Merkel and how her character-driven leadership has served her people. In the meantime, who do you think is leading with character? Tell us why you chose them and how their leadership has benefited others. Don’t limit yourself to well-known leaders. Use this as an opportunity to highlight some unsung heroes and quiet leaders.
Watch a short clip about the book:
Testimonials
Ph.D., Director, Gilliam Center for Free Enterprise and Ethical Leadership and Professor, Management Department, College of Business, James Madison University
Ph.D., Director, Gilliam Center for Free Enterprise and Ethical Leadership and Professor, Management Department, College of Business, James Madison University
President, AAISP – DC
P.Eng., President ACT Canada
President, Arneson Leadership Consulting
(Steve was named one of the country's Top 100 thought leaders on leadership in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and one of the Top 25 leadership coaches in America for 2008, 2009 and 2010 by Leadership Excellence magazine. )
Former Governor and Senator, Commonwealth of Virginia
EVP and CFO, Intersections, Inc.
(USN ret.), former POW
President, Financial Services, Capital One
CEO, Korea Exchange Bank
formerly management columnist at the FT, now Visiting Professor at the Cass Business School, London, and director of strategy at Edelman in the UK
former Commanding Officer, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, CVN-69, and recipient of the John Paul Jones 'Inspirational Leadership Award' from the Navy League of the US.
Professor Emeritus, Darden Graduate School of Business, University of Virginia
Co-author Anytime Coaching: Unleashing Employee Performance Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins Carey Graduate School of Business
Bishop Emeritus of Richmond
Professor Emeritus, Darden Graduate School of Business, University of Virginia.
Head Coach, Butler University Men’s Basketball Team
Managing Director, Merrill Lynch Wealth Management
Author of Be Your Own Coach, and On Becoming a Leadership Coach, and creator of the Georgetown University Leadership Coaching Program