By Sage Moran and Doug Moran “Mary” was amazingly talented. She was dedicated, smart, hard-working, savvy, and likable, and she had leveraged these assets to move up quickly. Success had bred success, and she was excited to take on her newest challenge. Her boss had asked her to take over a department that had been underperforming for the past eighteen months, and they were confident that she could turn it around. Mary quickly realized that things were worse than she had expected, and she was concerned that, for the first time in her career, she would fail. That scared her terribly. The problem was that her boss’s expectations, and those of other key corporate stakeholders, far exceeded her team’s capacity. While she was able to fix some of the problems and improve the team’s performance, most of the issues required more people and more money. Her boss had made it clear from the outset that neither was available. Mary had always taken pride in the jokes that she could stuff twenty pounds into a ten-pound bag. She was exceptional at living the adage of doing more with less, but now she was literally facing twice as much work as she had people to do it. She was deeply concerned. Mary and her team had spent weeks analyzing the work, investigating options, and challenging deadlines, but she kept coming to the same conclusion – she couldn’t get everything done in the time she was being given. With the facts in hand, she sat down to negotiate tradeoffs with her boss. While he was sympathetic, he declared the deadlines firm and reiterated that she wasn’t getting any more resources. Confronted with these realities, Mary and her team developed a triage plan that optimized the team she had. She took the triage plan to her manager and other key stakeholders to ensure they understood the tradeoffs she was making. The most important thing she did was highlight those tasks she would not be doing. Mary had discussed her plans with several trusted colleagues and her mentor, who concurred with Mary’s assessment and plan. To Mary’s chagrin, her boss kept reminding her that all her projects were important and that missing any deadlines would be seen as a failure. He ended many meetings with some version of “failure is not an option.” Despite the facts, Mary was expected to deliver, so she and her team hunkered down and did their best. Over the next six months, Mary was open and honest about their progress and equally clear about the missed deadlines, budget risks, and projects that she was not working on. Most of her key stakeholders were thrilled, but those whose projects were getting ignored began to rumble. They complained to Mary’s manager, who responded by calling her into his office to repeat his warnings about failure. As the year came to an end, Mary and her team had delivered more than they had predicted, but she had failed to meet several critical deadlines. Mary was frustrated and scared. She knew that the results they achieved were outstanding and that the projects they delivered were far more valuable than those she had not; however, according to Mary’s boss, she had failed. Mary feared that she had done irreparable damage to her career. Fortunately, some of the complaints about her work had come to the CEO’s attention, and he decided to look into matters personally. What he found deeply troubled him. He quickly realized that Mary had presented a compelling case for more resources, which had been ignored. Worse than that, no one had the courage to push back on these shortsighted decisions. He was disappointed with Mary’s manager and the corporate executives who had failed to listen when Mary had presented a clear and compelling case. Mostly, he was angry with himself for allowing this type of culture to thrive in the company he founded. He moved quickly to address the underlying issues that had created this situation. He recognized Mary and her team for their achievements. He also asked her to lead a team to find the root causes of the thinking that had led to such poor decisions and destructive actions. In the end, Mary’s failure led to real change. It provided a concrete, tangible demonstration of the impossibility of the demands she and her team faced. They exhausted all other methods of communication without substantial change, leaving them overburdened and overwhelmed. When their voices went unheard, action and results spoke volumes. The situation put her in a position that necessitated what we call “strategic failure.” It is the rigorous process of failing in a way that exposes challenges or problems that are being ignored. It is a risky strategy that should be used only as a last-ditch solution in unmanageable circumstances with poor communication and no feasible resolution. The risk of using “strategic failure” is evident in its name: It is a failure. It hinges on the contention that while putting forth our best effort, we are still likely to fail. When we have tried everything to communicate the impossibility of unattainable demands, there is really no choice in being unable to meet superhuman asks (without violating our boundaries*). There is authenticity in such scenarios. When we try in earnest and demonstrate the way our unheard concerns become a reality, our failures can affect positive change. When used well, “strategic failure” can lead to positive results like those described above. If we aren’t careful and disciplined, though, using failure as a tool can go terribly wrong. When we make the active choice to fall short in a task, we may be practicing what psychologists call “weaponized incompetence.” This label refers to when an individual acts as if or pretends that they cannot do the task, usually in the hope that someone else will assume responsibility instead. The key to identifying this behavior in ourselves is recognizing the actual ability to complete the task or the easy accessibility to it, making any failure not an inevitability. As a result, this behavior can be manipulative or passive-aggressive. This behavior may also be called “skilled incompetence” when someone uses this tactic to obtain a specific result that offloads their own burden. As discussed above, communication is one of the most important ways to distinguish “strategic” failure from “weaponized (or skilled) incompetence.” How well or poorly we communicate will often be the determining factor. We often find ourselves in situations where our workload exceeds our capacity, and we are forced to prioritize and make hard tradeoffs. These situations can be highly stressful in many ways. First, tasks do not simply disappear when left incomplete. The reality is that assignments must be done, and sometimes saying “no” – even in the forms of “I don’t have the capacity” or “I don’t know how” – doesn’t work. Our concerns may be ignored or rejected. In which case, we may have no choice but to perform more poorly than we would like. It is the moment of direct communication of limitations as well as our earnest consideration that distinguishes ethical failure from weaponized/skilled incompetence. This direct communication must be upfront and honest, establish clear expectations, and allow the person assigning the task to seek alternatives. When, despite our clear and explicit articulation of the risks and issues, we find ourselves in an untenable position, our communications will create accountability for adverse outcomes. To a large extent, communicating the risks associated with strategic failure comes down to saying “no.” Regardless of how well you say it, saying “no” is difficult and dangerous. It’s essential to recognize that structural, organizational, and cultural obstacles may inhibit this type of direct (seemingly contentious) communication. Some of us may be uncomfortable with setting boundaries and/or acknowledging limitations. Saying “no” requires confidence, boldness, and vulnerability. This is especially true because our accomplishments determine our career success and our (and potentially our family’s) well-being. It may feel easier to nonconfrontationally avoid difficult assignments, letting them fall to others to deal with. However, this type of passive behavior has its own risk. Portraying ourselves as inadequate or unqualified for an assignment or avoiding direct communication may create the perception we are guilty of weaponized/skilled incompetence. It is important that we remain aware of our own behavior to avoid potential missteps that could be (or perceived to be) weaponized/skilled incompetence. What questions should we ask to help us distinguish between strategic failure and weaponized incompetence in the workplace? Questions for Self-Analysis: The following set of questions builds off of the above for us to ask ourselves when considering the choice – or lack thereof – in a situation of overwhelm and potential failure. Strategic failure can be a powerful and effective tool for effecting change and communicating difficult messages, but it can also be risky. These risks aren’t just limited to those who use it. It can also adversely affect others. In the coming weeks, we will explore further the adverse impact strategic failure can have on those who lack the power or influence to avoid the problems using it can create. *A Note on Boundaries: It is important that we consider and implement appropriate workplace boundaries when examining situations of failure. We should not have to repeatedly disrespect our own boundaries in order to meet expectations. The choice to avoid doing so does not reflect an active choice to fail, even if giving more and more to the workplace may make the impossible demands feel more achievable.
By Sage Moran Fifteen years ago this month, my father made a bold and ambitious choice to step away from a job, in which he succeeded and enjoyed, to embark on a new chapter in his life. This decision occurred in August 2007, but it was August 1st, 2008 that he made the leap from corporate executive to entrepreneur. We all now know, and perhaps wince at, that timing; at the time, though, he knew that the economy was on shaky ground, but he had no idea that we were on the cusp of what would become the Great Recession. Little did he know of the turmoil he was about to encounter. In October of that year, the tension reached a pinnacle, as everything started to crumble, and his financial plans fell into jeopardy. It was only recently that he shared with me how scared he was at that time, and the reason for his fear was appropriate. He had two young children and a deepening uncertainty about the future. In the late fall of 2008 and the early winter of 2009, his rising stress manifested in the form of rumination. He would often lay awake at night, spinning in thoughts about the risks he had taken and how his decisions might adversely impact our family. One of my father’s coaching colleagues introduced him to several techniques that helped him manage that stress. Contemplation became one of the most powerful techniques he adopted to deal with episodes of rumination. Contemplation enabled him to transform his unhealthy and unproductive rumination into something healthy, focused, and even beneficial. So, what is contemplation? How is it different from rumination? How do we adopt this powerful technique to manage our own stress? Part One: What Is Rumination? The National Institutes of Health and the American Psychiatric Association identify that rumination refers to repetitive, perseverant thinking that usually focuses on negative content and emotional distress. It is the unhealthily persistent reviewing of a past or present occurrence, often an action, idea, or choice. This detrimental type of thinking is marked by its excessiveness as well as its negative content. We may fall into rumination when we are seeking to garner insight from a (usually negative) situation, when we are experiencing chronic (often uncontrollable) stress, or when our confidence or sense of self wavers. Characteristics like perfectionism or excessive worry about outside judgment/perspective can predispose us to rumination.1 Ruminations’ Associations with Unwellness: Practicing rumination is not only unpleasant and unproductive but it can also contribute to negative health outcomes as well. The American Psychiatric Association has identified its link to anxiety disorders, mood disorders, and sleep disorders, and it can exacerbate inflammation and physical health conditions through chronic stress. Strategies to Interrupt Rumination (American Psychiatric Association): Part Two: Understanding Contemplation Another form of deep, reflective thought is contemplation, and like rumination, contemplation takes shape as a focused consideration of a specific subject matter. However, in many ways, its practice contrasts with rumination. It differs in the way that examining a flower by plucking its petals and dismembering its leaves contrasts studying it from different angles and analyzing the plant it comes from. Both provide a greater understanding, but the former invokes images of harmful scrutinizing and dissecting while the latter suggests open reflection and broadening perspective. (In this comparison, simply thinking could be noting the appearance or smell of the flower without seeking to better understand it or gain insight.) Contemplation vs. Rumination vs. Thinking (British Psychological Society): There are several crucial differences between contemplation, rumination, and simply thinking. Factors specific to contemplation include: It is important to remember that, while rumination fixates on negative content and contemplation contrasts rumination in many ways, contemplation does not have to be wholly positive or optimistic. In reality, contemplation often includes elements that are positive, negative, and neutral. This diversity of tones reflects the openness and different perspectives in the act of contemplation. Practicing Contemplation: Methods and Benefits (British Psychological Society) Activities that can help facilitate contemplation are often those that connect us to our existence in the world and allow us to step back from routine thought patterns for greater reflection. Examples include: Often, we may find structured or tangible “props” (such as guided exercise, written instructions, breath awareness, mantras, postural techniques, etc.) helpful in these practices if they feel uncomfortable or unapproachable. Because they have the ability to deeper understanding and alter perspective, these tools can be highly beneficial in our self-development in the workplace and beyond. Additionally, whereas rumination can negatively impact baseline health, contemplation can provide positive health outcomes physically and mentally as well as improve performance and productivity. Ultimately, any steps we can take to recognize and interrupt rumination and to practice tools for contemplation offer benefits in the workplace and beyond. In a workplace environment, rumination not only limits our performance but can also lead to burnout, unrealistic goals and expectations, interpersonal conflict, and imposter syndrome. The above strategies to interrupt rumination may be able to help us escape perseverant and cyclical thinking, and the contemplation practices above can elevate thinking (for those of us with or without ongoing experiences of rumination) to a higher degree of analysis, insight, and growth by emphasizing openness to differing perspectives and thorough reflection. 1Anxiety vs Rumination: It is important to note that, while anxiety and rumination may overlap and contribute to one another, they are not the same thought process. Where rumination focuses on negative beliefs (such “I am…” or “That was…”), anxiety centers around uncertainty (such as “What if…” or “Is there…”). In that sense, rumination usually considers past and present and anxiety usually future. At its core, rumination concerns loss, whereas anxiety centers around anticipation.
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?
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