The assumption that we must choose between Individual Freedom “Or” the Common Good feeds our polarization. These two powerful values are both essential. How can we come together over these values, so that we can work together to limit the damage of COVID-19?
The leadership industry — leadership centers and institutes, leadership programs and courses, leadership teachers and trainers — sells moderation. In fact, sometimes leadership, including leadership that is exceptionally effective, is quite the opposite. Sometimes leaders are excessive.
The striking image of a maskless Donald Trump standing defiantly on the White House balcony on his return from hospital exemplifies the so-called “strong leadership” associated with men and masculinity. Why is the notion of the male strong leader still so influential and persistent?
Given a changed context, academic efforts must increasingly rely on evidence-based, scientific knowledge. To ensure its relevancy, we must also ask: What does it mean anyway? This question becomes even more important as wicked problems increase exponentially in nature, scope, and impact.
Often citizens assume that leaders in positions of power have the essential leadership capabilities needed for the work. However, many leaders measure their effectiveness solely on the stock market index and do not understand that effective leadership requires an intricate balance between the economy and humanity.
Being positive can facilitate transformational leadership but taken to extremes it can become insincere and manipulative. Excessive positivity constitutes a significant barrier to reflection and learning. By silencing critical voices, Prozac leadership has hindered our leaders’ response to the pandemic.
An enduring issue for leadership is the emotional effect of leaders’ presence and absence on those who look to them for direction, guidance, and reassurance. If leaders fail to show up, it sends a signal that they don’t really care. In times of crisis, care becomes a highly salient marker of effective leadership.
As we deal with the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and its disproportionate impact on women, minorities and the poor, much has been written about the effectiveness of the leadership traits exhibited by women. What has been different in women’s leadership?
What are the lessons we can learn from New Zealand’s remarkable success in responding to COVID-19? This cogent analysis points to their clarity of purpose in minimizing harm to lives and livelihoods and three key leadership practices – being led by expertise, mobilizing collective effort, and enabling coping.